Sports Truths

This website will enlighten you as to what really happens in sports events--how bad coaching and officiating determine the outcome of many games.

You are here: Home / Archives for Football

Refs Steal NFC Championship Game Again From Packers

by

The Packers’ first drive was stopped when they wouldn’t call the facemask when Aaron Jones had the ball. 

The Packers were driving at the end of the half to try to take the lead, the defensive back holds the receiver resulting in an interception, and then Tampa Bay scores a TD as a result, giving them an 11-point lead.  Similar to the regular-season game when bad calls helped Tampa Bay “beat” the Packers.

Not calling the hold on third down with 8:30 left forced the Packers to punt, down 5.

On the third-down incomplete-pass play before the field goal at the end, when the Packers were trying to tie the game, Adams, the intended receiver, was held.  It should have been first and goal from the 4. 

New England Patriots–More Gifts

by

Further to the post two posts below, the Patriots beat the Rams in the Super Bowl this evening with great help from the refs.

  1. A bad roughing call against the Rams on a clean tackle changed the momentum of the game at that early time.
  2. A bad offensive holding call against the Rams after a nice gain stopped a nice drive, and the Patriots scored their only touchdown on the ensuing drive.
  3. Toward the end of the game, down 10-3, the Rams threw a pass inside the Patriots’ 1-yardline where there was blatant pass interference that wasn’t called. Had it been called, the Rams almost definitely tie the game and have momentum. Just prior to this play, I texted a friend saying the refs need to start thinking about making a bad call since the Rams were threatening to tie.

Please read the post two posts below for additional information. 4 of the Patriots’ 6 Super Bowl wins were gifts, as this one was also a gift because not even considering the calls above, they were only in the game because the Chiefs player lined up offsides as mentioned in the post below.

Saints/Officiating/Overtime

by

The Saints are correctly very upset about the non-call on the pass interference, which probably cost them the NFC Championship Game against the Rams, and a trip to the Super Bowl. Sean Payton, Drew Brees, and others are vocal about this. Where were Payton and Brees after the 2009 NFC Championship Game, when there were so many bad calls against the Vikings, the league came out with a video pointing some of them out? These were game-changing calls, and the league did not even address the two bad calls in overtime that gave the Saints the victory. So, if they want to talk about being robbed this year, be honest and consistent and say they didn’t deserve their previous Super Bowl victory. That game featured numerous terrible, game-changing calls, not just one as with today’s game.

Officiating continues to be a major issue. When will the league decide to add another referee in the booth, who calls the refs on the field and tells them when a call is wrong and what the correct call is? Everyone watching the game on TV knows it’s a bad call, as does the ref in the booth, so why shouldn’t the refs make the right call? All this means is the league adds one more ref for each game, and in the booth. That ref can call down to the field and let the field referees know the correct call.

Overtime continues to be very unfair, and the league continues to do nothing about it. Defenses are very tired at the end of games, which might give an advantage to the team getting the ball first, since if they score a TD, as the Patriots did today, the other team never gets the ball. The fair way to do this is to let both teams possess the ball an equal amount of times, and play until one team is ahead after equal possessions. That might be one possession, or it might be more than one, but it’s only fair that teams get equal chances. Why let a coin flip decide the game, and this holds true even if the team possessing the ball first doesn’t win the game on their first drive, as they might still win the game on a subsequent possession, meaning they had one more opportunity than their opponent.

New England Patriots

by

Today’s AFC Championship Game was another example of teams handing the Patriots a playoff game with ridiculous strategy when the game is basically won, or winning by luck.

  1. The ridiculous tuck rule gave the Patriots a playoff-game win and resulted in their first Super Bowl victory, starting them on their road to success.
  2. In the Super Bowl, the Seahawks almost definitely win the game if they run the ball from the 1 at the end, but throw a pass that is intercepted.
  3. In the Super Bowl, the Falcons were in position to kick a field goal and go up two scores late, and instead of maintaining the field position, called a pass play from the pocket which resulted in them not getting the field goal which would have probably put the game away.
  4. Today, in the AFC Championship Game, the Chiefs intercept a pass late to basically end the game, but the play was nullified since the Chiefs lined up offsides.
  5. In the Patriots’ undefeated season, they would have lost to the Ravens, but the Ravens’ coach called a late, ill-advised timeout, nullifying the play that would have won the game for the Ravens.

All of these are unforced errors and complete gifts from the opponents, who had games won, with the exception of the tuck rule, which is a bad rule and resulted in the Patriots getting very lucky.

Eagles-bears Playoff Game

by

Most people are blaming Cody Parkey’s missed field-goal attempt for the bears losing the game. Yes, had he made the kick, the bears win. However, let’s look at all of the other plays that impacted the outcome and that should also be discussed.

  1. The bears punted into the endzone, which would have given the ball to the Eagles at their 20. The Eagles were offsides, resulting in a re-kick which went out of bounds at the 1, and resulted in a punt to the Eagle 48. No excuse for being offsides.
  2. The bears were going to punt, but an unnecessary roughness call when an Eagle player retaliated with a shove, gave the bears a first down and resulted in a field goal–3 gift points.
  3. All game, the Eagles ran up the middle for little or no gain, hurting their offensive production.
  4. With 13 seconds left in the half, an Eagle defensive back dropped an easy interception in the endzone, and the bears got a field goal. 3 more gift points, for a 6-3 bear halftime lead.
  5. With the lead at the end of the game, the Eagles kicked off to Tarik Cohen, an All-Pro returner, instead of deep or out of the endzone for a touchback. Cohen had a long return, setting up what would have been the game-winning field goal had the kick been good. Why open yourself to a big play, especially when there is little time left, when you don’t have to?

Philbin Almost Costs Packers The Game

by

I believe and have repeatedly stated that teams should kick the ball out of the endzone on kickoffs and punt a little higher and shorter forcing a fair catch or punt out of bounds, so you don’t risk a big-play return.  On kickoffs, when you kick short and hope to pin the team deep, you are basically gambling on gaining about 7 yards of field position vs. the risk of giving up a big play.

Last week, punting to the bears and the resulting long return played a part in the loss.  Today, the Packers gave up a kickoff return for a TD for the Jets, and another long punt return which was called back by a penalty.  With a little more than a minute to play in the 4th quarter and the Packers having just scored a TD and 2-point conversion to go up by 3, the Packers kicked the ball short to try to pin the Jets deep instead of kicking the ball out of the endzone without a lot of time left.  The resulting 51-yard return gave the Jets great field position and a chance to score the winning TD, though they eventually kicked a FG and the Packers won in overtime.

In addition, the Packers kicked a FG with 2 seconds left in the half, and instead of kicking the ball out of bounds and not risking a big-play return, they kicked the ball short, though did tackle the returner.

Packer-bear Game

by

The bears won the game at home by 7 points, and here are some relevant facts regarding the game and season:


1.  As Olin Kreutz said on the postgame show, the bears were relatively healthy and the Packers came in with 8 or 9 starters on IR.  These are the starters the Packers were missing:


Offense

Receiver–Geronimo Allison

Running Back–Aaron Jones, who I believe leads the league in yards/rush, got hurt in the first quarter and didn’t return.

Tight End–Jimmy Graham played, but played with a broken thumb.

Offensive Line–Missing Bulaga and another starter, and Taylor just returned from an injury.

Quarterback–Aaron Rodgers injured his groin toward the end of the first half.


Defense

Defensive Line–Missing Daniels, Clark, and Wilkerson, all excellent linemen.

Linebackers–Missing Perry and Ryan.  I believe Ryan was their leading tackler last year, and has missed the entire season.

Defensive Backs–King and House


So, a decimated team missing many starters played the bears in Chicago and lost by 7.


2.  Joe Philbin played a big part in giving the bears 10 points with terrible coaching decisions.


3.  I understand that this is just luck and the Packers might have benefited from this in the past, but for this year:


The Packers and Vikings played the Seahawks in Seattle, where they are very tough, and the bears played them in Chicago.


The Packers and Vikings played the Patriots and Rams on the road, and the bears played both at home.  The bears played the Rams in Chicago in December, and the Rams can’t play in cold weather.  They played poorly in their other game in cold weather.


4.  Here is an excerpt from an article a friend sent me after today’s game:
“The difference is most of what Trubisky does results from beautiful play design, giving him simple reads and open receivers.  Trubisky will make a handful of plays every game on his own, backbreaking because of how hard Nagy’s offense can be on its own.  Rodgers still makes those plays; it’s the rest of the time that has been like pulling teeth.  If the only way the offense can succeed is Rodgers making plays, that’s not sustainable over 16 games in 2018, not the way offenses exploded this season. 

 
As has been the case all season, the Packers’ urgency ramped up in the second half as they fought their way back.”


5.  Despite all of the above, the Packers and bears came into the game tied with 8-5 records and the Packers holding the tiebreaker.

NFL Proposed Rule Change For “What Is A Catch”

by

Everyone agrees the rule needs to be changed regarding what is considered a catch in the NFL.  However, there needs to be consistency in what is ruled.  For example, if a player catches a pass, starts to make a football move, and then loses possession, all of which happened very quickly, if this is considered a catch when the player breaks the plane of the goal-line or recovers the ball, it must be considered a lost fumble if the other team recovers the ball.  It must be ruled a catch in all circumstances, not just to benefit the offense.

bears’ 46 Defense–More Evidence

by

As many previous posts have detailed, I said since about 1983 how easy the 46 defense was to beat, and why teams’ offensive strategies against it were so wrong, guaranteed to fail, and made the bears’ defense looked dominant.  I continued to say this throughout the 1985 season.  I said that by putting 8 guys in the box, it was impossible to run against and the quarterback didn’t have time to sit in the pocket due to the rush, but what would work was quick, short passes, as the middle area of the defense was open due to 8 in the box.  The few times teams did run a play like this, it worked.  As we know, when Washington did it in the 1986-season playoffs, they beat the bears at home.  We also know that in 1985, in the game the bears lost to the Dolphins, Marino rolled out to avoid the blitz and threw quick, short passes.  We also know that about a year after the 1985 season, a number of national publications wrote about why no one played the 46 anymore, including Buddy Ryan who was coaching the Eagles, since teams figured out how to beat it.  We also know that Bobby Knight, when asked who would win the Super Bowl after the 1985 season, said New England would win, as they would very effectively hurt the bears with short passes.  We also know that Mike Ditka, the head coach of those teams, said about a year ago that opponents’ offensive strategies were all wrong, and had they not gone into max protect but spread out the receivers and done the other things I talked about, it would have been very effective and would have forced the bears to change their scheme.  He said teams should have attacked the defense, which is what I said.

I could never understand why something so blatantly obvious was unable to be seen by football coaches that have looked at film their entire careers.  These teams kept using strategy that had no chance of success and continued to fail, when the vulnerability of the defense was staring them in the face.  No other great defense continues to have people talk about its vulnerabilities as the bear 46 does.  The Super Bowl started with a quick, short pass to a wide-open tight end for a nice gain, but the tight end’s knee gave out and he couldn’t catch the ball.  The next play was a quick, short pass over the middle to a wide-open Stanley Morgan for what should have been a TD, but he dropped it.  The Patriots then started running the ball, and of course lost big.

Comcast aired a program about the 46 the other night, and more and more proof of what I’ve said all along was provided.  Marv Levy was interviewed, and he said that teams stopped playing the 46 because quick throws worked, “and the secondary was pretty much denuded because the line of scrimmage was so stacked and that finally became the way to attack the 46.”  Finally?!!!  I said this for years before other coaches figured this out, and this was blatantly obvious to anyone who understood football.  Levy continued, “and like everything else, it evolves in and it evolves out and something new comes up.”  Again, no one talks about vulnerabilities of the Ravens’ and Steelers’ defenses.

The Comcast program also talked about the Miami game, and spoke about Marino having success because he rolled out from the blitz and made quick throws to Nat Moore.  As the Dolphins went with 3 wide receivers and threw quickly to Moore, the bears could not cover this.  Moore was one-on-one, and could break plays since there were 8 defenders in the box.  Exactly what I said to do with the quick passes.  Did other teams learn from this?  Of course not.

NFL Playoff Unfairness

by

The NFL playoffs are set up unfairly, another point I’ve made for many years.  This is an unfairness that is easy to remedy, but the league refuses to do so.

Some winning teams on Wild Card playoff weekend get 6 days of rest, and others get 8.  It would be very easy to give all teams 7 days of rest, which of course is the most fair way to schedule, but the NFL continues to refuse to do this.

Some might argue that the Divisional Playoff games have to be scheduled in advance, but that’s ridiculous.  The NFL doesn’t know who is hosting games in the Wild Card round until the week before, and no one knows who will be hosting games in the Conference Championship round until the week before.  There should be no problem with giving all 4 Wild Card playoff winners 7 days of rest, and determining the dates after the Wild Card round.  In fact, it should actually be easiest to schedule the Divisional Playoff round with 7 days of rest for all Wild Card winners, since this is the only round where the host teams are known for two weeks.  The only change would be if they play Saturday or Sunday, and they would know the week before.

Four Football Questions

by

Question 1:

Why do defensive backs play press coverage with no safety help?  Playing this defense forces the defensive back to chase and not be aware of where the ball is, and allows the receiver to run by the DB.  Backing off two yards allows the DB to keep the play in front of him and allows him to play the ball, as well as react to the receiver’s moves.  Quarterbacks continue to audible to passes to receivers that are played press coverage, no safety help, because they know the receiver has a big advantage.  It makes the defense susceptible to big plays.

Question 2:

Why do the outside defensive players on punts block the outside guys at the line of scrimmage?  This has the same effect as press coverage with no safety help.  The outside guys on the punting team run past the blockers and can make the play on the punt returner.  Unless the league requires them to be on the line, it seems to make more sense to back off a little and be able to block the player as he’s running or even stay between the player and the punt returner.  Starting at the line gives the advantage to the outside guys on the punting team.

Question 3:

Why do teams kick off deep when they can’t kick the ball out of the endzone, and allow kickoff returns, opening themselves up to a big play?  If you can’t kick the ball out of the endzone or deep in the endzone, why not deep squib kick, which reduces the odds of a long return?  Why do teams allow punt returns, again opening themselves up to big plays?  Why not punt the ball out of bounds, or punt it high and a little short (perhaps 35 yards), forcing a fair catch.  I don’t understand why teams open themselves up to big plays.

Question 4:

Why is the rule for what is and isn’t a catch so difficult?  Why not state that if a receiver catches the ball and has two feet down (or a knee, etc.–the current rules for what is considered down), the play is a catch unless the ball comes out when the receiver hits the ground if he’s diving for the ball as part of the catch.  My proposal is that the pass is only incomplete if the ball comes out when the receiver hits the ground after diving for the pass.  If the receiver catches the ball and then falls when he stumbles and the ball comes out, the pass should be complete and this should be ruled a fumble (unless he was touched and the ground caused the fumble).  Those fans who have been very vocal that the pass should be ruled a catch on a play where the ball comes out late should be prepared to accept the fact that it should be a fumble if the ball comes out late and the receiver wasn’t touched.

Seattle Seahawks

by

The Seahawks continue to benefit from bad officiating calls, and were helped to “victories” in two games this season.

Previous posts have shown how the refs gave the Seahawks the replacement-ref game against the Packers, and how the refs gave the Seahawks the 2014-2015 NFC Championship Game against the Packers.

This year, Seattle “beat” the Lions when the refs failed to call intentional batting of the ball out of the endzone at the end of the game.  The NFL admitted the mistake.

This year, they were helped to a “victory” over Dallas, when, down 10-3 late in the first half, Dallas kicked a field goal to make it 10-6.  Seattle had 12 men on the field and called timeout, which wasn’t legal because they had just called timeout.  Had the penalty been called on Seattle, instead of kicking the field goal on 4th-and-3 from the Dallas 17 with 1:38 left in the half, Dallas would have had a first down at the Seahawk 12.  While there was no guarantee Dallas scores a TD, they had driven from their 20 and were moving the ball.  Seattle “won” the game 13-12, so this was a key terrible call, which the announcers repeatedly talked about.  Dallas’ coach was screaming about this, and confronted the refs at halftime.  The drive prior to that, Seattle scored a “TD” to go up 10-3.  The runner was clearly down about 6″-12″ from the goal line, and though the play was reviewed and the replay clearly showed the player down before crossing the line, the refs gave Seattle the TD.  Of course Seattle would have had a first and goal inside the one and would probably have scored a TD anyway, but the point is that things can happen and Seattle should have had to score legitimately.

This continues to happen and continues to favor Seattle, as evidenced by the obvious terrible calls in the 4 games referenced above.

bears’ 46 Defense

by

Previous posts cover what I’ve said since about 1983–how easy it was to beat the bears’ 46 defense due to its vulnerabilities.  These posts have also discussed the fact that Mike Ditka recently said this, and national publications talked about this after the 1986 or 1987 season.  It is how Jay Schroeder beat the bears in the first round of the 1986-season playoffs.  Here are two articles that discuss similar strategy to what I’ve always said.

The first article is by Kevin Clark, and was in the February 3, 2015 Wall Street Journal.  Please pay particular attention to why coaches don’t do smart things and to the last sentence, as these things are exactly what I’ve said.

Only Bill Belichick could look at a team that lost by 35 points and decide he has to steal their ideas.

A year ago, the Seattle Seahawks vaulted to the top of the football world by dismantling Peyton Manning’s Denver Broncos, 43-8, in Super Bowl XLVIII. The Seahawks did it by forcing virtually all of Manning’s throws to be short, harmless tosses. That was all that Seattle’s fortress of a defense would allow—little passes in front of them that went for negligible yardage.

So when Belichick and the New England Patriots needed a strategy for Sunday’s Super Bowl, he chose seemingly the most irrational one possible: an attack based on those short, seemingly harmless tosses.

It wasn’t the most brilliant game plan in history, but it may have been the most practical.

New England’s dinking and dunking down the field was the football equivalent of driving cross-country because you’re afraid to fly. It took the Patriots forever to get to their destination, but they got there. Although the interception Seattle threw at the goal line—an unforced error unlike any in sports history—gave New England the victory, it was the Patriots’ counterintuitive offensive approach that got them in position to win in the first place. That strategy enabled them to overcome a 10-point fourth-quarter deficit against one of the greatest defenses in NFL history.

In fact, Tom Brady , the game’s most valuable player and perhaps the greatest quarterback in history, was historically conservative Sunday night. There have been 88 quarterbacks to play in the Super Bowl. Only six of those had a worse mark than his 8.86 yards per completion. All of those quarterbacks lost—including Peyton Manning.

Given the many strengths of the Seattle defense, though, Belichick’s ploy made sense. What do you do when your opponent has built a defense that prevents you from throwing deep, eliminates the popular “back-shoulder” sideline throw” and basically walls off the outside of the field? You swear off huge chunks of a typical football game plan. Sunday’s Super Bowl was about a team admitting its limitations.

About three years ago, the Seahawks decided that big, physical cornerbacks, who were undervalued in the speed-obsessed NFL, were the way to stop the league’s best passers. Cornerback Richard Sherman became a star, and Seattle’s roster of 6 feet-and-over cornerbacks provided no room for wide receivers to operate.

But wide receiver Julian Edelman knew things would be different on Sunday. “You’re not going to run fades on them. I’m 5-10; they’re 6-2,” Edelman said. “Coach kept on saying, ‘You’ve got to use your quickness.’ ”

That is exactly what happened. Time after time, Brady would find receivers over the middle of the field for one of those short, quick passes that the Seahawks would allow. Then the receiver—Edelman, Brandon LaFell, Rob Gronkowski or Danny Amendola—would simply dive ahead and get a few yards where they could. It wasn’t particularly glamorous.

New England avoided throwing at Sherman, which could be considered an act of football cowardice. Counterpoint: The Patriots didn’t care. Edelman knew that such routes would work on the Seahawks’ big defensive backs, since they couldn’t move as quickly in tight spaces as the Patriots receivers.

So the question becomes: Why haven’t other teams successfully employed Belichick’s plan? That is complicated. NFL coaches can be stubborn, yes, but there is also the belief that if you are good at something, you shouldn’t abandon it, no matter the circumstances. So teams that rely on throwing outside and deep—common in today’s NFL—tend to do so despite the odds.

There were always whispers about how to beat the Seahawks. The San Francisco 49ers, for instance, knew that they could annoy the rival Seahawks by shifting to those sleek speedsters, but then that would complicate the 49ers’ blocking schemes. So they never really made much of an effort.

There were routes that coaches around the league privately knew could get those big cornerbacks gasping for air—double moves that require a few jukes—but the quarterbacks would need to hang in the pocket to deliver those passes, a tough task against the ferocious Seahawks pass defense. The Patriots decided it was best to get the ball out quickly Sunday night.

Of course, the lasting memory from this game will be Malcolm Butler’s game-saving interception for New England—or, rather, Seahawks coach Pete Carroll’s inexplicable decision to call for a pass from the goal line in the final minute instead of a run. But when NFL strategy aficionados study this game, they may see the end of an era.

Since the Seahawks burst onto the scene in 2012, every team was looking to get taller. Receivers who looked like power forwards became trendy, as did cornerbacks who were 6 feet and up. But on Sunday night, Belichick and Brady unveiled the blueprint: if a team is great at something, don’t give them a chance to execute it.

The second article was on the WEEI 93.7 FM website:

TOM BRADY’S NEAR PERFECTION WITH QUICK SNAP-TO-RELEASE TIMES LEADS PATRIOTS TO SUPER BOWL WIN, MVP

 02.05.15 at 9:51 pm ET
By Ryan Hannable

It’s no secret Tom Brady likes to get the ball out his hands quick, especially against good defenses.

That was exactly what the quarterback was facing in the Super Bowl and the Seahawks’ No. 1 pass ranked defense, and it was no surprise the game plan was to get the ball out quick, as Brady averaged 2.09 seconds by our count from snap-to-release Sunday in Super Bowl XLIX.

These numbers were similar to the divisional round game against the Ravens when Brady averaged 2.27 seconds from snap-to-throw.

“We were playing a great defense and they’€™re a great team,” Brady said after the game. “Took everything all the way to the last play. Just proud of our effort and our determination. We showed it all year. Every team has a journey and a lot of people lost faith in us early, but we held strong, we held together, and it’€™s a great feeling.”

As a reminder, these numbers need to take into consideration of plays such as quick receiver screens effecting the numbers a bit, but it was clear Brady and the Patriots offense wanted to get the ball out quick and keep the Seattle defense on its heels.

Overall for the season, Brady’s average times were around 2.4 seconds by our count, and he actually struggled when they were close to two seconds, as in Weeks 2-4 he took an average of 2.1 seconds, and struggled by his standards. Then in Week 16 against the Jets, in one of his worst statistical games of the year, Brady averaged 2.21 seconds.

In the postseason, Brady excelled when he got the ball out quick, and no more than he did Sunday against the Seahawks.

By our count, when taking less than two seconds from snap-to-release, Brady was 21-for-22 with 163 yards and three touchdowns. Even further, according to Pro Football Focus, when Brady took 2.5 seconds or less from snap-to-attempt he had a 127.9 passer rating, this compared to when he took more than 2.5 seconds, his passer rating was 42.4.

Overall in the postseason, also per Pro Football Focus, the Patriots quarterback completed 75 percent of his passes for a 115 passer rating when taking 2.5 seconds or less from snap-to-throw, and when taking more than 2.5 seconds he completed just 48.3 percent of his passes and had a passer rating of 46.3.

Averaging 2.09 seconds from snap-to-throw is absurd, as no quarterback in the league came close to that over the course of the regular season. According to Pro Football Focus, the two quarterbacks coming even close to Brady on average for the year were Andy Dalton (2.25 seconds) and Peyton Manning (2.22 seconds).

While many people have the belief of the more time a quarterback gets the better they are, Brady has proven this postseason the opposite — the quicker he gets the ball out to Julian Edelman, Rob Gronkowski and Danny Amendola, the better he is.

NFL Overtime Rules

by

The current NFL overtime rules are unfair, as both teams are not guaranteed a possession.  If the team that gets the ball first scores a touchdown, and they are playing against a tired defense, the game ends without the other team getting the ball.

While there is no way to make this completely fair and the team that goes second has an advantage, I think the following is a more fair way to decide the winner.  Here are two options:

1.  Play a normal football game, with each team getting a possession.  If the game is tied after both teams have one possession, continue playing with both teams getting a second possession.  If the game is still tied after a second possession, have both teams get a third possession.  Continue this until one team is ahead after both teams have the same number of possessions.  This is similar to extra innings in baseball, where both teams get equal opportunity.

2.  Give one team the ball at their own 20 with 4 downs on each series.  The other team would then get the ball at their own 20 with 4 downs on each series.  Both teams would go in the same direction.  If the game is tied after one possession for each team, repeat with a second possession for each team.  If the game is still tied after two possessions, repeat until one team is ahead after both have the same number of possessions.  The teams would alternate going first to minimize that advantage.

 

NFL Defense

by

I talked about how to beat the 46 defense for years before the NFL figured it out.  I’ve said for the last few years that if I was a defensive coach playing the Packers or the other good passing teams, I’d play more safeties at the expense of linebackers.  Safeties can cover the receivers, tight ends, and running backs that go out for passes, while linebackers can’t or can’t as well, and can still play the run.  They are faster than linebackers.  In the WSJ a day or so ago, there was an article titled “The Future of NFL Defense.”  Here are some excerpts:
“Last year, NFL defense hit a new low: The 697 total yards earned in an average game was the most in league history.  The previous high was set in 2012.  And that replaced 2011’s mark.  You get the picture.
But one team is fighting back.  Those inside the league say the New Orleans Saints are quietly crafting an unorthodox defense that could change the game and become the shape of defenses to come.
The idea was hatched by accident last year, when injuries to linebackers gave Rob Ryan a dilemma: play bad linebackers or get creative with positions.  Ryan went the latter route and stressed the safety position, playing as many as four safeties at once and playing three at a time in his default defensive package.  In the NFL, some teams play as few as one safety and almost no team ever employs more than two.
Safeties are bigger than cornerbacks, who typically cover wide receivers, but faster than linebackers, who are built to stop a running back and take on offensive linemen.  They can be 60 pounds lighter than some linebackers but 20 pounds heavier than some corners.  They can cover the insanely athletic crop of tight ends now in the NFL and take on the league’s rising group of tall receivers all while giving up only a little bit of speed from a cornerback.
A bonus in Ryan’s mad-scientist scheme is that he can position the safety anywhere from 20 yards away from the quarterback to right on the line of scrimmage, rushing the quarterback off the edge.
The result?  The Saints improved from last in the NFL in yards allowed in 2012 to fourth last season, Ryan’s first with the team.”
Once again I saw something that was so obvious well before the NFL coaches did, and this was discovered “by accident!”  How could teams not figure out that they should have more DBs playing, even if only against the great passing teams?  Why let teams continue to beat you through passing and not adjust?

 

Coaching In NFL Playoffs

by

Here are some of the coaching decisions made in the first half of the 49ers-Panthers game:

  1. The 49ers, up 6-0, played press coverage on Steve Smith, with no safety help.  The Panthers saw this and called a fly pattern to Smith, who caught a touchdown pass because, as usual in this defense, the defensive back was chasing from the start and was unable to pay the ball even though he was on Smith.  Defenders continue to get burned by doing this, but keep playing this defense.  If a DB isn’t going to bump the receiver off the line, why put themselves in this position?
  2. Carolina could have had a nice early lead, but from the 1 yardline, kept running up the middle unsuccessfully.  The 49ers have a very good defense, so if you’re going to run up the middle, you want to have 4 receivers in the game to spread out the defense and keep them from having all 11 guys over the center.  On these plays, the Panthers had no receivers in the game (or split wide), and had everyone in tight, allowing the defense to have everyone over the middle.  All 4 plays failed as a result.
  3. At the end of the half, the Panthers played press coverage on 3rd-and-9 from their 9, and since the DB could not play the ball as a result, he committed pass interference, giving the 49ers first-and-goal from the 1, where they scored a TD.  Instead of possibly being up 10-9 at half after holding the 49ers to a FG, they were down 13-10 because of this.

Cowboy Coaches Give Game Away

by

The Dallas Cowboy coaches gave the Detroit Lions the game today, which was a game they had basically won.

Up 3, the Cowboys got the ball back at the Detroit 31, with 1:24 left in the fourth quarter.  Detroit had 2 timeouts left.  If Dallas gets a first down, the game is over.  Dallas made no attempt to get a first down, running for a loss of 3, running for a loss of 1 (Detroit called its last timeout), running for 9, and kicking a field goal to go up 6.  This strategy is saying that even though you have the ball and control of the game, meaning if you get a first down it’s over, you are going to play for a field goal and put the game in the hands of your defense.  This is a defense that is tired at the end of the game, and will be facing not only a desperate offense, but one of the most high-powered offenses in the league.  This strategy fails many times.

Detroit got the ball at its own 20 with 1:02 left in the fourth quarter.  With 40 seconds left, the Lions had a second-and-ten from their 37, after spiking the ball.  Dallas has to play 4 safeties across and deep, so they can’t get hurt by a big play and they will have the play in front of them, rather than chasing.  A big play was the only thing that could hurt them.   Dallas doesn’t do that, and allows a 40-yard completion to their 23, where they were chasing the receiver.  They then allowed a 22-yard completion to their 1, and a QB sneak for the TD on the next play, with 12 seconds left.

The Dallas coaches blew the game by not trying to end it on offense, and then by not playing the appropriate defense.

NFL Instant Replay

by

Last night’s NFL opener was a great example of what I think is wrong with the instant-replay system.

The Ravens led the Broncos 17-14 early in the third quarter.  The Broncos threw a third-down pass, which bounced before the receiver caught it.  It sounded like it was obvious from what the announcers said on the replay.  Had the call been correct, the Broncos punt.  Harbaugh didn’t challenge, the pass was allowed for a first down, and the Broncos went on to score a TD to go up 21-17.  The Ravens fumbled the kick deep in their territory, and the Broncos scored again to go up 28-17.  With the momentum change, they quickly scored again to go up 35-17, basically ending the game in the third quarter.

This is my problem with the challenge system.  I have always believed that when the booth can see these bad calls, they should be communicated from the booth to the refs.  The challenges should be for when this is not done.  Millions of people watching were all aware of the bad call, and probably many in the stadium, but even though this was obvious and known, NOTHING was done about it.  How is that a good system?  Is the point to get the calls right (within reason), or is the point to make sure the human element is kept in the game?  This call could very well have decided the outcome of this game, and the outcome of the playoffs if it helps determine homefield advantage, etc.  I will continue to ask–why not get it right?

Second Super Bowl Power Outage

by

The Ravens-49ers Super Bowl was A Tale of Two Coaches–John Harbaugh in the first half when he was aggressive offensively, and his “power outage” in the second half when he was not aggressive.  The Ravens won their previous games because they let Flacco throw.  When the score was 28-6 Ravens, I received a few texts telling me the game was over.  I responded it was not over, because I never underestimate the decision-making of NFL coaches.  They just don’t get it, and as a result, use strategies that allow the opponent to hang around and sometimes win.

We’ll look at Baltimore first, then S.F.

Baltimore’s first drive:  Pass on first down for 8 and get a first down.  Pass on first down for 20 yards.  Run on first down for 1 yard, and throw incomplete on third-and-9.  However, S.F. was offsides, so it became third-and-4, and the Ravens passed for a 13-yard TD.  The first-down run should have stalled the drive, but the Ravens were fortunate S.F. jumped offsides.  On this opening drive, Baltimore threw on 5 of 6 plays and every yard but 1 was through the air.  There were no previous runs to make play-action effective–they came out passing and scored a touchdown.

Baltimore’s second drive:  Pass on first down for 9 and get a first down.  Run for 3, pass incomplete, pass for 30.  Pass for a loss of three, pass incomplete, get sacked and punt.  This might look like a failure on a drive that started with a first-down pass, but on the second-down pass to Torrey Smith in the endzone, he was blatantly interfered with and it was not called.  Had this been called, the Ravens would have had a first-down at the 1, and a very likely TD.  First-down passes and passes on other downs were successful.

Up 14-3, Baltimore got to the S.F. 15.  A first-down run for 1 yard stalled the drive, and resulted in the fake field-goal attempt.  The fake was another example of John Harbaugh being aggressive in the first half, but the first-down run stalled the drive.

With 2:07 left in the half, Baltimore threw on first down and had a 56-yard TD pass on third down.

I’ve always said that being aggressive on offense carries over to the defense, and being passive on offense does the same thing.  The Ravens were more aggressive in the first half and the defense played well, but when they got more passive in the second half, their defense didn’t play as well and gave up a lot of points.  In the first half, Flacco threw for 192 yards (187 if you deduct the 5-yard sack).  The Ravens ran 15 times for 46 yards (just over 3 yards/carry), so the 21-6 lead could have been bigger if not for all of these runs that didn’t do much.

When the second half started, I said Baltimore needed to come out aggressively on offense and throw on first downs to keep the pressure on S.F. and put the game away.  The first time they had the ball, they were up 28-6 thanks to a kickoff return for a TD to open the half, and they threw on first down for 15 yards.  They then ran on first down for 2 yards and punted, throwing away an opportunity to pretty much put the game away.

The 49ers scored two touchdowns in 2:21 to cut the lead to 28-20, so Baltimore needed to score a touchdown to regain momentum and take momentum from S.F.  They ran on first down for 3, and fumbled on second down, giving the 49ers the ball at the Baltimore 24.  A first-down run led to a turnover and score, as S.F. got a field goal, cutting a once-22-point lead to 5.

Again, the Ravens needed to score a touchdown to regain momentum, take momentum from S.F., and make it a two-score differential.  The Ravens had first-and-goal at the 5, and a touchdown would have been huge, putting them up 2 scores in the fourth quarter.  The Ravens ran on first and second down, so had to kick a field goal, giving them an 8-point lead.  The first-down run stalled the drive.

I’ve always said that when a team holds their opponent to a field goal after stopping them deep in their territory, the resulting momentum change frequently results in them scoring a touchdown, and predicted this would happen here.  S.F. did score a touchdown to pull within 2 points, but missed the 2-point conversion.

Baltimore got the ball up 31-29 with 9:51 left, and I said they needed to be aggressive so they could score a TD and go up 2 scores, in addition to getting momentum.  They passed for 4, ran for a loss of 3, and got the first down on third-down pass interference.  They ran for 2, passed for 7, and passed for 15.  They ran for 12.  They ran for 2, ran for 1, passed incomplete, and kicked a field goal from the 20.  A first-down run stalled the drive.  They needed a TD to go up 2 scores, and this field goal only put them up by 5, so a TD would beat them.  Once again, the momentum change from stopping a team deep in your territory frequently leads to the other team scoring.  There was 4:19 left when S.F. got the ball.  Since the Ravens didn’t try to score at TD, they were putting the game in the hands of their defense.  At this point in the game, the offense is desperate so will pass (increasing the chances of being successful), the offense will have 4 downs vs. the normal 3 (increasing the chances of being successful), and the defense is tired (increasing the chances of the offense being successful).  S.F. easily marched to the Baltimore 7, where, with 2:39 left, they had 4 chances to get a touchdown.  The 49ers had a great chance of scoring a touchdown if the blatant holding was called on the defensive back, so the Ravens were very lucky here.  Their strategy of not trying to score TDs in the second half should have cost them the game (offensively, they had only 6 points in the second half), but the obvious penalty wasn’t called.  Having said this, the Ravens were robbed of a TD in the first quarter when Torrey Smith was interfered with and another drive was stopped when, as Trent Dilfer said, an “egregious late hit on Flacco” wasn’t called.

Now, let’s look at what S.F. did:

S.F.’s first drive:  Throw on first down for 20 yards, but get called for an illegal formation, making it first-and-15.  Run on first down for no gain and punt.

S.F.’s second drive:  Run on first down for a loss of 1, pass for 19.  Run on first down for no gain but get first down on QB run.  QB run for 7 and get first down.  Pass on first down for 24 yards to the Raven 8.  Run on first down for no gain, which stalls the drive, forcing them to kick a field goal.

S.F.’s third drive:  Pass on first down for 29.  Pass on first down for 11.  Run on first down for 9, run for 7.  Run on first down for a loss of 1, fumble on the play, and Baltimore recovers.  A first-down run led to a turnover and a resulting touchdown by the Ravens.

S.F. later got the ball at their own 6, ran on first down for no gain, and punted.  This also resulted in a Raven touchdown on the next drive.

With 1:45 left in the half, S.F. passed on every first down, which Baltimore knew they had to do, and got to the Baltimore 9 with a second-and-2.  They ran for no gain, this hurt the drive, and they had to kick a field goal, making it a 21-6 score at halftime.

After the kickoff return to start the second half made it 28-6 Ravens, S.F. needed to be aggressive offensively to get back in the game.  On their first drive, they threw on first down for 29 yards, then ran for 3 yards on first down and punted.  Another drive stalled by a first-down run.

S.F.’s second drive of the second half:  QB scrambles for 5 and 15 yards, run on first down for 2 and pass for 9 on third down, pass on first down for 18, pass on first down for 31 and a TD, making the score 28-13.  Being aggressive offensively resulted in a TD.

S.F.’s third drive of the second half:  They got the ball at the Baltimore 20 after a punt return.  They threw on first down for 14, then ran on first down for 6 and a TD.  Again, being aggressive resulted in a TD, making the score 28-20.

Ravens-Patriots Game

by

The Ravens ran on 10 of their 12 first-half first downs, and as a result of not trying to score, only had 7 points and trailed 13-7.  All of this running, which the experts say leads to increased time of possession, resulted in a time of possession of 11:48 for the Ravens in the first half, as opposed to 18:12 for New England.

At halftime, Bill Cowher said that the Ravens ran on 10 of their 12 first downs and needed to let Flacco throw as they did against Denver the week before.  He also said the team that will win is the team that has the coach that will make halftime adjustments.

The Ravens ran on their first two first downs in the second half, and punted.  This means they ran on 12 of their 14 first downs to this point, only had 7 points, and were losing.  The two times they did throw on first down, they got a first down and a touchdown.

This is the Ravens’ next drive:

Pass incomplete on first down, but get the first down on pass interference.  Pass incomplete on first down, but get the first down on a 22-yard pass on second down.  Pass incomplete on first down, but get the first down on a 15-yard pass on second down.  Pass on first down for 5 and get a first down on an 8-yard run on second down.  Pass incomplete on first down, but get the first down on a 12-yard pass on second down.  Pass on first down for 5 yards and pass on second down for a 5-yard TD and a 14-13 lead.  They threw on all 6 first downs, and scored an easy touchdown, which they could have been doing all game.  Of the 6 first-down passes, 4 were incomplete and the other two were for only 5 yards, but they got the first down every time.  They never had a third down!  The Ravens knew they had to throw on most of those second downs, yet they still completed passes for first downs.

This is the Ravens’ next drive:

Pass for a loss of 4, pass for 23 on second down.  Run for 4 but offsides, so first-and-5.  Run for 3, pass incomplete, and run for 11 and a first down.  Run on first down for 6, pass on second down for 6.  Pass on first down for 8, run on second down for 2.  Pass for 3 and a touchdown and a 21-13 lead.  The only third down they faced followed a first-down run on first-and-5.

This is the Ravens’ next drive:

Pass on first down for 16.  Scramble on first down for 14 (it was a passing play).  Pass on first down for 6, pass on second down for 11 and a TD, and a 28-13 lead.  Every play on this drive was a called pass, and they faced one second down.

The Ravens, who were throwing in the second half, had 19:18 time of possession, vs. 10:42 for N.E.  This again conflicts with the experts who say you have to run to increase time of possession.  This was a complete reversal from the first half, when they did run and lost the time-of-possession battle.

 

Sugar Bowl

by

Here is another example of coaches not understanding proper strategy and making moves that hurt their chances of winning.  I have said for years that if I was a coach, every kickoff would be a deep squib kick and every punt would be 35-40 yards and high, forcing a fair catch, or out of bounds.  I would not let a big-play return beat me.  This is even more critical when the opponent’s offense is going nowhere, and a return can give the other team momentum and change the game.

Louisville played Florida in the Sugar Bowl.  Louisville was ranked 21st, and Florida 3rd.  With 7:54 left in the fourth quarter, Louisville kicked a field goal to take a 33-10 lead.  This is a 3-score lead, with only half a quarter to play.  At this point, the only thing that could hurt Louisville was a quick score on a big play.  In addition, Florida was the best 4th-quarter team in the country, having the largest point differential, so they needed to be aware of this.  So, Louisville was playing one of the top three teams in the country and the best 4th-quarter team in the country, and had the game in control.  What does the Louisville coach do?  He kicks off normally, and the Florida returner returns it 100 yards for a touchdown, with 7:41 to play.  It is now a 2-score game, almost no time ran off the clock, and the momentum of the game changed.  Florida held Louisville, got the ball back, and scored a touchdown to make the score 33-23.  They went for 2 points, and had they gotten it (they didn’t), it would have been a one-score game with 2:13 to play and the chance of an onside-kick recovery.  The Louisville coach took a game that was basically won and put it in jeopardy.  AND, I am sure no one even realizes this.

Tennessee Gifts Give Game To bears

by

Fans of the bears look at the final score of 51-20 bears, and say the game was a rout and the Titans had no chance.  Instead of just looking at results, I prefer to look at how the result came about.  I think the reason why is always extremely important, because if you know the reason why, you have a much better understanding of what happened and a chance to make changes in the future.  Of course NFL coaches and players will never realize these reasons why, but it is still important to point this out.

Before getting to specifics, let me point out that before every game since the 2007 season, I have stated that teams that play the bears have to protect the ball since the bears try to strip it.  I have also said that you have to be very conscious of protecting the ball when Charles Tillman is around the play, as he tries to strip it all the time and is very effective at this.  So, players have to focus on this.  Did the Titans watch a bear gamefilm from the last 5 years?  Not only have I been saying this for 5 years, but others are also saying it.  Here are two postgame comments.  Laurence Holmes of The Score (Chicago talk-radio), who is the bears beat writer, said something to the effect that teams will have to figure out that Tillman will try to strip the ball, implying it’s ridiculous they don’t plan for this.  Doug Buffone, a former bear player and sports-radio announcer, said “You would think your opponent would start to understand this.”  It’s been obvious to anyone who has watched a bear game over the last 5 years that Tillman does this, but players continue to not protect the ball adequately.

So, now let’s get to the details to see why the game ended up being a rout and why it didn’t have to be.  As I have pointed out, the bears start slowly, so getting an early lead on them can be very effective in setting the tone of the game, keeping them frustrated, and possibly changing their gameplan.

1.  After the opening kickoff, the Titans threw on first down.  Of course the receiver was wide open and for a big gain.  As he was running with the ball after a 23-yard gain, he let Tillman strip it and the bears recovered at the Titan 46.  Not protecting the ball could have cost the Titans a TD and early 7-0 lead, because if they were willing to continue to throw on first down, they probably would have scored.

2.  On their second possession, the Titans passed on first down for 9 yards, then ran on second down for no gain, then ran on third down for no gain.  They were trying to run against the number-one rushing defense in the league, and as I always point out, the bears can stop the run and can’t stop the pass.  This running resulted in a punt, instead of a potential early score.

3.  The Titans dropped an interception, again preventing a potential score.  As I pointed out, the bears start slowly, so it’s important to get an early lead.

4.  On their third possession, the Titans passed on first down and got a first down on a second-down run, but the play was called back for an illegal formation.  Another unforced errror and gift that stopped a drive and potential score.  The Titans then had another illegal formation penalty on the next play!  Unforced error/gift.  This backed them up, and when they punted, the punt was blocked and the bears got a TD on the play.  So, instead of potentially being up by a few scores with the bear offense doing nothing, the Titans were down 7-0.  The Titans then got a safety, again because the bear offense was doing nothing, so the score was 7-2 bears.

5.  Game after game has turned on punts to Devin Hester, and as I’ve always pointed out, it is idiotic to punt to him and this changes the momentum.  This especially holds true in games where the bear offense is doing nothing, because you put yourself at risk of a big play.  As I stated, the bears have won many games over the years due to opponents punting to Hester.  What does Tennessee do?  They punt to Hester, he returns it 44 yards to the Titan 8, and the bears get a TD to go up 14-2.  This completely turned the game around.

6.  Since the momentum had shifted greatly after the return and TD, Hasselbeck threw the ball right to Urlacher, who returned it for a TD and a 21-2 lead.

7.  On Tennessee’s next possession, they let Tillman punch the ball out again, and the fumble was recovered at the Tennessee 16.  This led to a bear TD.

So, after one quarter, it was 28-2 and the game was basically over.  The bears had 4 TDs in less than half a quarter even though the bear offense had gone nowhere.  They scored on drives of 8 and 16 yards due to gifts, and the other two TDs were due to gifts as a result of bad strategy.  I think it’s obvious that the Titan strategy and lack of protecting the ball resulted in an insurmountable lead for the bears in the first quarter, when the Titans could have had the lead instead had they protected the ball and not punted to Hester.  This is my point when I tell people that you can’t look at the final result and say the other team had no chance.  You have to look at how the final result was arrived at.  The Titans gave the bears a big lead by what they did and prevented themselves from scoring by what they did.  Oh, and by the way, Tillman forced two more fumbles during the game, and one of them was returned to the Tennessee 2, resulting in a bear TD.  The Titans fumbled another time at the bear 20, stopping another scoring drive.

In addition, I have already pointed out that a blatant hold by J’Marcus Webb that was not called gave the bears last week’s game.  In this game, the bears had some big plays that were successful only because blatant Webb holds were not called.  He tries to block the right defensive end, the end quickly gets around him and has a path to the QB, and Webb grabs him around the neck or upper chest.  It’s blatant, in the open field and not hidden by the line, and close to the QB, all of which makes it very easy for a referee to see.  I would ask the readers of this post to watch for this next game and see how often he blatantly holds with no call.  These non-calls also led to scores, again helping give the appearance of a rout.

Please note these comments from Bud Adams, Titans owner, after the game:

“In my 50 years of owning an NFL franchise, I am at a loss to recall a regular season home game that was such a disappointment for myself, and the fans of the Titans,” Adams, 89, told The Tennessean. “We were grossly out-coached and out-played from start to finish today. At this time, all aspects of the organization will be closely evaluated, including front office, coaches, and players over the next seven games. If performance and competitiveness does not improve, I will look at all alternatives to get back to having the Titans become a playoff and championship football team.”

Notice the first part of the comment: “We were grossly out-coached.”  That led to a lot of the “out-played” part.  I’m glad that someone else noticed that the terrible coaching led to so much of this.

 

McCarthy Keeps Cardinals In Game

by

Once again, Mike McCarthy’s strategy kept the opponent in the game, and allowed them to have the chance to win toward the end.  The Packers came into the game missing many key starters and lost three more key starters during the game, so it was critical for them to get a big lead and put the game away so the Cardinals wouldn’t have a chance to win the game due to injuries, turnovers, fluke plays, etc.  So, let’s see what this week brought:

In the third quarter, up 21-7, the Packers started a drive at the Cardinal 17.  This was a chance to put the game away.  They ran on first down for 2 yards, and once they ran, I said it was obvious they were playing for the field goal even though they didn’t realize it.  The first-down run did stall the drive, so the Packers kicked a field goal, keeping the Cardinals in the game.

The Packers started their next drive at midfield, and again, a touchdown could have pretty much ended the game since they were up 24-7 and a TD would have made it 31-7.  The Packers ran on first down for 2 yards, and punted.  Again, a first-down run stalled a key drive.  Since this kept the Cardinals in the game, the Cardinals scored a TD to make it 24-14 midway in the third quarter.

On the Packers’ next drive, where it was critical to score and regain momentum, they ran on second down for 3 and third down for no gain, so had to punt.  Again, runs stalled a drive.  The Packers were missing many starters and were only in a 10-point game as a result of being conservative.  With less than a minute to play in the third quarter, the Cardinals, still with momentum, kicked a field goal to pull within a touchdown at 24-17.

At 31-17 early in the fourth quarter, the Packers again had a chance to put the game away by going up 3 scores, but ran on first down for 5, ran on second down for 4, ran on third down for no gain, and punted.  Runs stalled the drive.  Had the Cardinals scored a TD, it would have been a one-score game.

With about 5:00 left, the Packers again didn’t try to get a first down and tried to run the clock, resulting in a punt.  The Cardinals were driving for the TD that would pull them within one score, but the Packers held.

Game after game, McCarthy lets teams hang around where things could happen to cost them the game, instead of putting games away.  With all the injuries they have, this is even more important.  I don’t know if he will ever get this.

Singletary

by

As pointed out on previous posts, I said all during Mike Singletary’s career (and after) that he was a great leader and very good against the run, but very overrated as a player.  I said he wasn’t very fast and couldn’t cover.  I said the only reason he was considered great was that Dan Hampton played in front of him, and once Hampton retired, he wouldn’t be anywhere near as good.  That is what happened.  I was told all along and to this day by bear fans that I’m wrong.  I’ve also pointed out that Singletary himself, maybe 15 years after he retired, said he watched films of the games he played in, realized he owed all his success to Hampton, called Hampton to tell him this, and Hampton responded by saying something to the effect of “you’re just realizing that?”  A few days ago, the hosts on ESPN radio in Chicago were talking about those bear teams and Singletary.  The three hosts, who are bear fans, were saying he was the sixth or seventh best player on that defense, and I believe it was John Jurkovic, who played in the NFL, who said he was seventh.  Jurkovic went on to say (this is almost a direct quote) “no one benefited more by having great players around him than Singletary. No one.  You put the other stars on other teams with lesser players, they’d still be great.  You put Singletary on a team with lesser players….trouble.”  I’ve said this all along, Singletary himself and Hampton said it, and now a former player also said it, with the agreement of the other two show hosts.  However, I’m sure bear fans will still say I’m wrong.

Coaching/Managing Decisions

by

The following are some of the recent decisions coaches and managers have made, and surprisingly, some of them are not the usual decisions and show a better understanding of the game.  Others did or could have cost their teams games, many of them playoff games where every game is extremely important.

1.  The Yankees were up 2-1 in games vs. Baltimore, so a win would clinch the series.  It was 1-1 in the bottom of the 8th, and the Yankees had not hit or scored much since the first game.  If they scored here, they would lead going into the 9th inning.  They were struggling offensively, and would continue to through the remainder of the playoffs.  They had second and third with one out, and Alex Rodriguez up.  He was struggling badly offensively, and struck out in a key situation earlier in the game.  The Yankees had only scored one run all game, and that was on a groundout.  It was obvious they weren’t going to score without squeezing.  In addition, the Orioles would never expect him to squeeze.  They did not squeeze, of course did not score, and lost 2-1 in 13 innings.  The Yankees went 5 more innings without scoring.  The Orioles were also struggling to score and it took them 5 more innings to score the winning run, which is another reason scoring the lead run in the bottom of the 8th was so important.  This strategy could have cost the Yankees the series, although they did win Game 5 to advance.

2.  In a Detroit-Oakland baseball playoff game, Leyland didn’t squeeze with Dirks, a lefty facing a lefty pitcher, up 2-0 in the sixth inning with the bases loaded.  Of course, the Tigers didn’t score.

3.  In a Yankee-Oriole playoff game, Ibanez had already homered to tie the game in the 9th, and then homered in the 12th to win it.  I said prior to the at-bat in the 12th that the pitcher should not throw anything in the strike zone, as Ibanez had a number of key hits prior to this and was the one Yankee hitting.  This might have cost the Orioles the series.

4.  In the bottom of the 9th of the first Tiger-Yankee game, Ibanez was batting.  The Yankees were down 4-2, and there was a man on base, making him the tying run.  As Ibanez had many key hits, was batting with confidence, and the other Yankees weren’t hitting, I again said the pitcher can’t throw a strike to him.  They pitched to him, and he homered to tie the game.

5.  Verlander was pitching for Detroit in the fifth and deciding game with Oakland.  Detroit was up 6-0 and would usually bring in Benoit and Valverde for the 8th and 9th.  Both were struggling badly, and I said Leyland needed to leave Verlander in.  He finally got this and did leave him in, and they won 6-0 to win the series.

6.  The Tigers were beating the Yankees in Game 2, and Coke pitched a good 8th inning.  I said he had to bring Coke back for the 9th since he knew he was on, since Leyland normally brings in Valverde for the 9th.  Leyland again got this and brought back Coke for the ninth, and the Tigers won.

7.  The New England Patriots lost to Seattle at least in part due to their strategy.  They wasted all three second-half timeouts–one to avoid a delay-of-game, one on 2nd-and-4, and one to avoid 12-men-on-the-field.  It is better to lose the 5 yards in a close game and keep your timeouts.  The Patriots got the ball back with 3:02 left, up 6.  I have always said you have to get the first down, which means to pass, since the strategy to take time off the clock and then punt, putting the game in the hands of your defense, backfires many times.  The defense is tired at the end of the game, and the offense is desperate, playing with urgency, and passing.  Plus, the opposing defense knows you’ll run, and has everyone playing the run.  The Patriots run for one yard, run for one yard, pass incomplete, punt, and the Seahawks drive for the winning touchdown.  I was told this was the third time this year the Patriots have done this, and lost all three games by one or two points.

Packer-Seahawk Game II

by

Sporting News had an article and video on their site today.  Here is the link if you want to watch the video:

http://aol.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2012-09-25/nfl-replacement-refs-blown-call-packers-seahawks-video-mnf?ncid=webmail1

In the video, it is stated that “this undermines the legitimacy of the season.”  It also says “Green Bay won the game.”  The statement about the legitimacy of the season being undermined is true, as it was pointed out last night that this game affects two division races, a conference race, and potentially homefield advantage.

Here is the text:

NFL’s explanation of replacement refs’ blown call an insult to fans

Vinnie IyerSporting News

The NFL still doesn’t get it.

The league issued a cold, unwavering statement in response to Monday night’s officiating mess in Seattle that gave the Seahawks a controversial 14-12 last-second win over the Green Bay Packers.

There is a long explanation of why what was ruled a simultaneous catch by Seahawks wide receiver Golden Tate for a 24-yard Hail Mary touchdown was the correct call, but the league missed a chance to come clean on its biggest mistake—putting replacement referees in charge in the first place.

“The NFL Officiating Department reviewed the video today and supports the decision not to overturn the on-field ruling following the instant replay review,” read the statement’s most definitive lines. “The result of the game is final.”

In other words, the Packers got robbed and the league can’t do anything do about reversing the result—even though that’s one of the powers commissioner Roger Goodell does have, when the situation merits.

While coming to its roundabout conclusion on the final call, the NFL provided only subtle criticism of the officiating in the third paragraph.

“When the ball is in the air, Tate can be seen shoving Green Bay cornerback Sam Shields to the ground. This should have been a penalty for offensive pass interference, which would have ended the game.”

That acknowledgement, admitting what happened shouldn’t have ever happened, is a further insult to what everyone knows should have been a Packers win.

The league statement ends with more contradiction when it cites the rulebook on “simultaneous catch.” Based on how Packers defensive back M.D. Jennings controlled the ball and Tate did not, even that wasn’t good enough for the NFL to at least print its version of a retraction.

“It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and an opponent subsequently gains joint control.”

There was no mention of the “simultaneous call” in the corner of the end zone that caused the confusion, with one official not sure if he should rule a touchback and other not sure if he should rule a touchdown.

Meanwhile, NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith composed a letter to players in which he told them he would review “any and all possible actions to protect” them.

“While the focus today is about a blown call and the outcome of one football game, our focus as a family of players is and will remain squarely on workplace safety,” Smith wrote.

The Packers lost and the Seahawks won, and nothing will change that. We can only hope the resulting public relations nightmare will cause the NFL to feel a sense of urgency in its continued private negotiations with the Referees Association.

It’s unfortunate if it would take a controversial defeat by one of the NFL’s signature franchises to finally prompt the league’s owners into striking a deal with the officials’ union. But at this point, for fans of every team, that’s the more important victory at stake.

Refs Steal Game From Packers/McCarthy Gives Game To Seahawks

by

I will start with the atrocious officiating that cost the Packers the game tonight, and then show how Mike McCarthy still doesn’t understand winning strategy, as he also cost the Packers the game.

Regarding the officiating, the Packers intercepted on the last play of the game to win 12-7.  However, the refs said Golden Tate, the Seattle receiver, caught the ball and gave them the “winning” touchdown.  While the ball was in the air and about to get to him, Tate pushed Sam Shields, Packer DB, in the back with two hands to knock him down and get separation.  This was done in the open field in full view of the side judge at the goal line, and was blatant offensive pass interference.  After the push, Jennings, Packer DB, intercepted the ball, and Tate then put an arm around the ball that Jennings had against his chest.  It was not even close to simultaneous possession, but a clear interception.  The side judge who didn’t call the blatant offensive interference then came over and signaled touchdown, while the back judge signaled stop the clock, which a former NFL ref said probably meant touchback.  The play was reviewed, and the touchdown was upheld.  More on this later, as I will first talk about the other bad calls.

The Seahawks got their other touchdown due to a 15-yard personal foul penalty on the Packers.  The Packer did retaliate and deserved the penalty, but the refs missed the Seattle personal foul that was in the open field that caused the retaliation, and this penalty played a major role in the Seahawk touchdown.  Had both penalties correctly been called, instead of giving the Seahawks 15 yards, the Seahawks probably don’t score, as they didn’t do much offensively all game.

After the Packers scored to go up 12-7, with 8:44 to play, the Packers intercepted the ball at the Seattle 26.  Since Seattle was doing nothing offensively, a score here for the Packers would have been huge.  The play was nullified by a terrible roughing-the-passer call, which not only didn’t give the Packers the ball, but kept the Seattle drive alive.  That penalty gave Seattle their first first down of the second half, so their offense was going nowhere.  The ESPN announcers said that when they asked Russell Wilson, the Seahawk QB, after the game if it was a good call, he just rolled his eyes, knowing it was a bad call.

On the same drive, with first-and-25 at the Seattle 43, Seattle threw a long pass and the receiver should have been called for offensive pass interference.  This should have made it first and 35 from the Seattle 33 for a team going nowhere offensively, but they called defensive pass interference, which the announcers admitted was a terrible call.  Instead of the drive almost definitely being stopped, the Seahawks got a first down at the Packer 25.  Trent Dilfer said that the announcers (including him) “were 10 yards away from the play, and it wasn’t close to being interference.”

These terrible calls on the Seattle drive not only prevented the Packers from probably putting the game away after the interception which was one play after their touchdown, but allowed the Seahawks to drive to the Packer 7.  Once the Packers punted, it put Seattle in position to throw a Hail Mary pass, since they got the ball back at the Packer 46.

These calls all contributed to the Packers “losing” the game, with the final call being so ridiculous it will go down in NFL history as a joke.  Before I get to McCarthy’s contributions, I will mention some of the things said on the ESPN postgame show.

  1. The announcers read the rule many times to state why the Packers won.  All three announcers said they were 15 yards away from the play and couldn’t believe it when they called the play a touchdown, as it was so obvious an interception.
  2. Gerry Austin, a former NFL ref for 27 years, said Jennings caught the ball and it was an interception.
  3. Trent Dilfer said the situation is an insult to our intelligence.  The announcer also said this tears at the fabric of the game and the integrity of the league is at stake.
  4. One of the announcers said it was “an embarrassing ending that cost the Packers the win.”
  5. One of the announcers said someone tweeted that this is the first time in NFL history a QB threw a game-winning interception.
  6. An announcer said this call could have a significant impact on playoff positions down the road, as it impacts the playoff races in two divisions and one conference.
  7. John Clayton said the ref looked lost coming out of the replay booth.
  8. Trent Dilfer said “the NFL is screwing up the brand.”
  9. Chris Mortensen said the call cost the Packers the game.
  10. Adam Schefter said an NFL coach told him that call “was a joke and the officials gave the home team the game.”  He also said a league official told him all scoring plays should be reviewed at NFL headquarters as they do in hockey.”  He then said this call “causes this season to have an asterisk by it.”

I believe the Packers should consider protesting the game, as perhaps this was not a judgment call, but a misinterpretation of the rules regarding who has possession.

I do not know if this is true, but Rodgers said after the game he was pretty sure they gave him a kicking ball to throw on the failed two-point conversion.  If that is the case and it contributed to them not converting, that action by the refs also cost them the game, because the last “touchdown” would have only tied the game.

Here is what Stephen A. Smith of ESPN said on his Twitter page on multiple posts:  “What a horrible, horrible roughing-the-passer call on Green Bay to continue that Seattle drive.  This is so bad it can’t be put into words.  Just a complete unmitigated disaster.  Just horrible.  That’s it.  I’m done.  CLEARLY AN INTERCEPTION.  JUST DISGRACEFUL.  ABSOLUTE ROBBERY IN THE NFL.  The league has thrown away its integrity.  Golden Tate with a blatant pass interference on Sam Shields.  Then Jennings had the ball, brings it to his chest.  All Tate has on ball is arm.  Horrible!  Just horrible.  If I’m the Packers, I would refuse to go back out on the field to be there for an extra point.  I just wouldn’t do it.  If the NFL wants to maintain any credibility whatsoever, it should OVERTURN this decision IMMEDIATELY.  The game should be awarded to Green Bay.”

Now, to McCarthy:

1.  On the two-point conversion, McCarthy called a low-percentage pass when a much higher-percentage pass would have been a better call.  This was a key play, because converting would have pretty much guaranteed no worse than a tie in regulation.

2.  On the last drive, McCarthy continually rushed three men, which gave Wilson time to complete a key 22-yard pass to the Packer 24 and to throw the Hail Mary.  The three-man rush continues to backfire for the Packers and cost them the Giant playoff game last year, but McCarthy continues to do it.

3.  The Packers got the ball inside their 10 with under 2:00 to play.  If they got a first down, they would win the game, but if they didn’t get a first down, they would have to punt and the Seahawks would have almost a minute to try to score the winning touchdown with good field position.  I said to throw a safe screen pass on second and third down to get the first down, since the Seahawks were playing the run.  I also said it was too risky to put the game in the hands of the defense, which had played well, but would be facing a desperate team that would be passing.  McCarthy ran on all three downs and punted, giving the Seahawks the ball at the Packer 46 and allowing them the opportunity to try to win.

 

 

Jay Cutler

by

This is a response to a friend:

I knew you’d respond to my comment that the bears got Cutler for nothing.  When there were first discussions regarding the bears getting Cutler, I said that if they got Cutler, other great free agents would come to the bears to play with him, since the bears always have a good defense and now they’d have a good offense.  Other great players would see the potential for winning.  I was proven right on this with Peppers and Marshall (who wanted to play with Cutler), and others, such as Chester Taylor (who didn’t work out) were interested since they saw the potential.  I said I’d give up 5 first-round draft choices in a minute for Cutler, because the other great players who would sign would take their place.  Plus, the bears have a relatively bad record with first-round draft choices anyway.  So, let’s just take Peppers.  I don’t believe he comes to the bears if Cutler isn’t here.  So, let’s see, would you rather have Cutler and Peppers or two first-round draft picks and a third round pick?  Anyone who even has to think about this doesn’t understand football.  Cutler was 25 years old and had just thrown for 4500 yards.  He was obviously going to be an elite QB for the next 10 years, and any team he went to would be able to contend if they surrounded him with players.  Are you going to actually tell me that Kyle Orton was a loss when you can get Cutler?  Getting Cutler made the bears an instant contender when they wouldn’t have been with Orton or others.  So, getting Cutler and the ability to contend for the next 10 years wasn’t worth FAR MORE than those picks and Orton?  Everything I said would happen if the bears got Cutler before they even got him has come true.  They gave up far less than they should have, they became an instant contender, other great players want to come to the bears, etc.  I said it before and I’ll say it again.  Five first-round picks would have still been a steal for the bears.  Elite QBs are very difficult to get, and the money you would spend on first-round picks can be spent on proven great veterans who can compete immediately and who want to come to the team.  You need an elite QB to compete in the current NFL.  The bears weren’t serious contenders before Cutler got there, and wouldn’t be now if they still had Orton.  You sound like all the other writers, etc. who were saying the bears gave up a lot to get Cutler!  Again, do you want Cutler and Peppers, or those draft picks?  I’m not even adding Marshall to the equation, or Bush, the running back, or the others that will also sign because Cutler made the bears a contender.  Once again, I was proven right on what I said would happen.  And, as I told you, thanks to Ted Thompson, Cutler is on the bears instead of the Browns.  The Broncos wanted Brady Quinn, not Orton, but Cutler’s agent wouldn’t let him play for Mangini since he saw what Mangini did to Favre (his client) with his ridiculous conservative offense.

Sports Illustrated Bounty Article

by

Please see the link below, especially the first two pages.  Here’s an excerpt, which is exactly what I’ve said over and over since the first quarter of that game.  Peter King also used the word I used for the proposed 18-game season–idiotic.
I keep coming back, over and over, to something I first reported Friday evening, something I saw in a confidential four-page memo sent to the 32 teams (and obtained from one of those teams) late Friday, detailing the abuses.
“At times, players both pledged significant amounts and targeted particular players,” the memo said. “For example, prior to a Saints playoff game in January 2010, defensive captain Jonathan Vilma offered $10,000 in cash to any player who knocked Favre out of the game.”
Anyone who thinks the Saints defense didn’t go over the line to try to do just that wasn’t watching the game — and didn’t see the three plays I reviewed over the weekend. Early in the game, Favre handed off to Percy Harvin, and after the handoff — a handoff, mind you, a running play — defensive lineman Bobby McCray ran at Favre and hit him flush in the chin. That brought a 15-yard unnecessary roughness flag from referee Pete Morelli and a fine from the league five days later.
In the third quarter, defensive lineman Anthony Hargrove got 15 yards for pile-driving Favre into the ground after a pass. Four plays later, Morelli missed an egregious high-low hit from McCray and tackle Remi Ayodele; maybe Morelli figured he’d just flagged Hargrove and he couldn’t throw a flag every time Favre got mugged. “I thought my ankle was broken after that play,” Favre told me after the game. “I felt a lot of crunching in there.”
That week, McCray got fined a total of $20,000 for two hits — the hit on Favre’s chin and the hit below his knees after he’d released the pass. Hargrove got $5,000 for slamming Favre to the ground.
There are many reasons Roger Goodell has to act decisively here, but I keep coming back to leader-of-the-pack Vilma speaking up in a team meeting, with, I’m assuming, his teammates already at a fever pitch for the biggest game of their lives, and Vilma throwing $10,000 out there if one of them would knock Favre out. By a concussion from nailing him in the chin after a handoff? Fine. From a bruised kidney after pile-driving him into the ground? Fine. With a torn ACL from diving at his exposed knee and lower leg? Fine. Whatever. Just get him out of the game.

Favre

by

This is the response to a friend who had feedback on the Favre post:

Since Favre wanted to make a play to win, he wanted to be the hero and that was his focus?  A 55-yard field goal, while makeable by Longwell, is not “very makeable.”  The coaching decisions in the 4th-and-26 game led to that play, including the previous play on the punt, which I stated prior to the play.  The playcall in the Giants game was what was wrong.  But, let me get this straight.  Manning throws a ball to Assante Samuel on the last drive of the Super Bowl 4 years ago, but that’s okay and not highlight-seeking.  The game was on the line, and he threw a terrible pass that should have been intercepted, costing his team the game.  He then threw 2 passes in the 49er game this year right to 2 defenders, who collided both times.  Either, let alone both, were terrible passes and should have cost his team the game.  But, that wasn’t highlight-seeking and is okay.  Brady’s 4th-quarter Super Bowl interception was a terrible play, but isn’t highlight-seeking and is okay.  Brady’s two interceptions in the Ravens game, and a third called back by penalty (I’m not including the free-play fourth one) were terrible passes and should have cost them the game, but that wasn’t highlight-seeking and was okay.  Brees’ interceptions weren’t highlight-seeking and were okay.  Only Favre’s were.  And, let’s talk about the Saints game since you brought it up.  Favre was far and away the best player on the field for 59-1/2 minutes.  Not only did his coaches and teammates make critical error after critical error, but despite this, and despite the fact that he was 40 years old, and despite the fact that the Saints intentionally tried to injure him all game (more on that in a minute), he was dominating the entire game.  It got to the point that the league had to release a video from the head of officials showing some of the terrible calls against the Vikings that cost them the game, and they didn’t even talk about the two horrendous calls in overtime that gave the Saints the game!  So, he’s incredible the first 59-1/2 minutes, everyone else lets the team down, the refs steal the game, he’s playing the 4th quarter on basically a broken ankle, he’s 40 years old, they were looking at a 55-yard FG, and it’s his fault they lost.  Got it.  Now, to the game.  It was obvious in the first quarter that the Saints’ gameplan was to intentionally injure Favre and get him out of the game.  I stated that after the first dirty play, and more followed.  Had I been the Vikings coach, after the first occurrence in the first quarter, I call timeout and get the refs together, and ask for Sean Payton to be in the meeting.  I then state that I understand what the Saints are trying to do.  We’re talking about it now before anything else happens.  However, should anything else happen, it’s obvious the Saints want to play that way and are establishing the rules, so my team will be forced to play the same way.  Should Favre get hurt on a cheap shot, I will threaten to have my players slam Brees into the ground even if it’s after the play over and over until he’s also playing hurt, or if Favre is knocked out of the game, my players keep taking shots at Brees until he’s out of the game even if it’s well after each play is over.  If the refs won’t stop it or kick guys out of the game or threaten a forfeit, then it’s only fair that my players can do the same thing.  Of course I wouldn’t do that, but that is what I’d threaten.  What went on in that game was ridiculous, and they finally did almost break his ankle.  However, on one leg, he led 3 fourth-quarter drives. The first went to the Saints’ 10 where Berrian fumbled.  The second went for a TD.  On the third, with little time left and people saying they should play for overtime, he led them into FG-range only to be penalized for 12 men on the field.

Aside from the fact that Favre won 9 Super Bowls (including the one with the Vikings) and won a ton of games by throwing the passes you mentioned, which also put his teams into the playoffs, I think the “blind allegiance” you refer to is a double standard on your part.  Manning’s pass 4 years ago was right to the Patriots, and should have cost his team the Super Bowl.  His two passes right to two 49er defenders should have cost his team this year’s NFC Championship game.  Brady’s interception probably did cost his team the Super Bowl this year, and his three interceptions against San Diego didn’t help his team.  Brees’ two interceptions cost his team in the playoffs this year.  Favre’s teams were not winning at those points, although the games were tied.  You conveniently don’t mention the fact that if the NFL-admitted numerous bad calls didn’t happen (as well as the overtime bad calls that gave the Saints the game), the Vikings easily beat the Saints, and it was largely due to Favre.  You conveniently didn’t mention that if Sherman doesn’t punt from the Eagle 34 on 4th and 1 before the 4th and 26, and had they blitzed on that play which was working every time, Favre would have led his team to the victory.  At the end of the first half, Favre drove the team to the Eagle 1 where a TD would have basically put the game away, and on 4th and 1, Dorsey Levens (I think he was the running back) tripped on his lineman and didn’t score.  Had the Packers not had a bad-call block-in-the-back penalty on the punt before the interception (I said before the play they shouldn’t be blocking at all), they are almost in field goal range and that play doesn’t happen.  You don’t mention any of these things.  In the Giant NFC Championship Game, as I mentioned, it wasn’t Favre’s fault he threw that interception unless he audibled to that play.  Anyone who would call a play like that in those conditions doesn’t have a clue.  Favre showed he could march down the field with short passes in those conditions, but the playcalling didn’t take advantage of this.  Prior to all of these situations, Favre showed he could march his team, but others’ mistakes (players and coaches) put the games in jeopardy.  Even at 40 years old, he was the best QB in the league (you could make a case for Peyton Manning).

New York Giants

by

The Giants are incredibly lucky, and keep winning playoff games due to critical unforced errors by their opponents.  Let’s review some history:
1.  4 years ago, the Packers gave them the NFC Championship Game, which the Giants won in overtime, by having the worst offensive and defensive gameplans in the history of the playoffs.  This became obvious very early in the game, yet the Packers never adjusted.  They did receive national criticism for this.
2.  In the Super Bowl 4 years ago, on the final drive which was the game-winning drive, Manning threw a ball right to Patriot DB Assante Samuel.  If he catches it, the Patriots win.  He dropped it, and the Giants went on to score the winning TD.
3.  This year, the Packers gave the Giants the Divisional Playoff Game by dropping many passes (costing themselves about 4 TDs), fumbling numerous times without being hit hard (not protecting the ball), and three-man rushes and other idiotic coaching moves.
4.  This year, the refs gave the Giants the NFC Conference Championship Game by overruling a Giant fumble deep in their territory toward the end of regulation, which would have given the 49ers the game.  The 49ers gave the Giants the game by letting a punt hit them, giving the Giants a critical 4th-quarter TD, then fumbling a punt without being hit hard in overtime, giving the Giants the “winning” FG.  The Giants had been going nowhere offensively.
5.  Today’s Super Bowl was more of the same.  The Giants won 21-17.  The Patriots gave them their first 2 points by Brady grounding the ball from the endzone.  Up 2-0, the Giants fumbled the ball deep in Patriot territory, but the Patriot recovery was nullified by them having 12 men on the field, and the Giants scored the TD.  The first 9 points were gifts.  Later in the game, the Patriots stopped the Giants inside the Giant 20, which would have given them great field position at a critical point in the game.  However, the Patriots were offside, nullifying the stop, and the Giants got the first down and continued the drive to get better field position.  Toward the end of the game, Welker dropped a wide-open pass at the Giant 21 that probably would have won the Patriots the game.
All of these instances are unforced errors by the opponents.
Aside from the refs giving the Giants the game, the 49ers gave the Giants the game with the 2 plays on the punts.  The Giants were going nowhere all game, and the first muff gave them a TD and the 4th-quarter lead.  They then went nowhere again, until the second fumble gave them the “winning” FG.  In addition, Manning threw 2 passes right to 49ers where 2 DBs collided on both and dropped the balls.  These passes were terrible and easy interceptions.  I could go on and on, but anyone who doesn’t think the Giants were lucky to make the playoffs due to the Miles Austin play, then lucky to beat the Packers who gave the game away (more on that in a minute), then lucky to beat the 49ers (see above), then lucky to beat the Patriots (see below), isn’t looking at things realistically.  Now, in the Packer-Giant game, I’m finally getting a chance to watch the tape, since I was at the game.  I have a long way to go, but let me just start by saying two things now.  On the Packers’ opening drive, Finley took a forearm to the helmet at midfield that the announcers showed and said should have been a personal foul.  This was blatant and out in the open, and could have cost the Packers a TD.  On the second drive, on the Jennings fumble that wasn’t called a fumble, I now know why he fumbled.  Grant hit him with a forearm blow to the facemask, then stripped the ball.  That should have been a personal foul on the Giants.   

Favre

by

This is an article from Yahoo! Sports:

Vikings coach loses cred in locker room

        By Jason Cole, Yahoo! SportsWednesday, Aug 18, 2010

A bad ankle wasn’t the only thing that kept Brett Favre wavering on returning this year. One Viking says Favre has issues with coach Brad Childress. “Brett just doesn’t trust him,” the player said.

Even as Minnesota coach Brad Childress was getting what he desperately wanted, he couldn’t help but further undermine himself in the eyes of his players.

On Tuesday, as Vikings guard Steve Hutchinson, defensive end Jared Allen and kicker Ryan Longwell were flying back and forth between Minnesota and Mississippi to bring quarterback Brett Favre back for another season, Childress tried to cover up a fact that was widely reported. Childress, who wasn’t scheduled to talk to media Tuesday, had special teams coach Brian Murphy and offensive coordinator Darrell Bevell tell reporters that the three players were actually at the team facility rather than aboard a private jet.

Bevell couldn’t quite go along with the charade, pushing the explanation on Childress.

“I came out here and [Childress] told me he had the other guys inside,” Bevell said, referring to the three players. “They were in the building. I came out to practice, Coach said they were inside.”

That little bit of misdirection didn’t get much attention, but it raised a lot of eyebrows inside the Vikings’ locker room.

“Chilly can’t even tell the truth about that,” the player said. “I mean, how ridiculous is that? What’s the big deal that he has to lie? Worse, he has to tell other guys to lie for him?”

In short, even as Minnesota’s best hope to win a Super Bowl this season was rejoining the team, Childress was losing more ground with his team in the battle for respect. One of the biggest issues playing out behind the scenes in Minnesota is that many players, particularly on offense, have no respect for Childress. Among those players is Favre, who officially returned to the team Wednesday. According to multiple team sources, Favre’s disdain for Childress is deep.

“Brett thinks Childress has no clue about offense,” a Vikings player said.

Childress’ presence, not Favre’s ankle injury, was one of the biggest reasons Favre was hesitating about playing again, sources said. In early July, Favre had indicated to one player that he was likely to play. However, after Childress visited Favre on July 19, Favre’s desire to return declined.

“Brett just doesn’t trust him,” a player said.

Both Childress and Favre declined to address the issue Wednesday, but the problems run deeper than events from last season. It goes beyond the incident in the Dec. 20 game against Carolina when Favre refused to come out of an eventual loss when Childress wanted to pull him. It’s beyond the Nov. 15 win against Detroit when Childress got angry with a play Favre changed in the second half.

One of the biggest problems in this situation is that Childress is allowed to run free within the organization. Because owner Zygi Wilf and team president Mark Wilf both live in New York, Childress doesn’t have to answer to anyone on a day-to-day basis. In the power structure between Childress, vice president of player personnel Rick Spielman and vice president of football operations Rob Brzezinski, Childress has the final say. He has taken that final say to mean that he can basically act as he pleases.

The heart of the conflict is Childress’ perceived lack of football savvy. Some players believe that most of the offensive coaching staff is made up of yes-men like Bevell. Furthermore, Childress is the type who doesn’t take outside ideas very well.

“He has his way of doing things and that’s it,” a player said.

This season, Childress almost didn’t get Favre as a result.

 

Favre

by

People don’t understand the frustration he goes through every year and game.  He wants to win so badly and gives 100%, and it frustrates the heck out of him to know they could be up by 30, yet it’s a close game, due to the idiotic coaching.  I know exactly how he feels, because I feel the same way watching his games.  Last year they ran the entire first half against the bears and were down 30, then threw the second half and scored about 35 points.  He led the league in QB rating and they were undefeated (the refs stole the Pittsburgh game), Childress decided to run, they lost 3 of 4, they passed again and never lost again.  The league admitted stealing the Saints game.  Favre has won 9 championships.  He is so frustrated by this (Mangini was the same for the Jets), that it seems it’s not worth coming back.  It came out years later that he almost retired many years ago due to his frustration with Rosley.  He’s not interested in stats or being the hero, he just wants to win.  If he had coaches with a clue, his stats would be at least 30% better and perhaps more.  The ankle was an issue, as was his bicep surgery last year.  One year the Packers were 1-4 and Favre was not having a good year.  Everyone said he was done and should retire.  We had dinner with some friends that week, and I told them he was still great and if they let him throw, the team would be great.  Rosley had a heart problem that week and would be out for many weeks.  Sherman took over the playcalling and said at the time he would open up the offense and let Favre throw.  The Packers won most of the games, made the playoffs, and were robbed by the refs in the Viking playoff game.  He threw for over 4000 yards and 30 TDs in basically 11 games!  The year he was with the Jets, despite emphasizing the run, a team that won 4 games the previous year was 8-3, had beaten 8-0 Tennessee and N.E. at N.E., and was the best team in the AFC, when he hurt his shoulder and tore his bicep.  They lost 4 of 5 and just missed the playoffs.  Even with those injuries, when they threw on first downs they got first downs, but they kept running!  I don’t blame him at all.  He gives his all, but others don’t get it and cause his teams to lose games.  Despite all this, he still has the most wins, he has most records, his teams had the best winning percentage of any team in the 4 major sports for a 10-year period, etc.

Various

by

A response to a friend:
I want to make a few comments to show you that what I said would happen regarding the bears did happen.  When the bears got Cutler, I told you how Ted Thompson not only cost the Packers two Super Bowl wins by forcing out Favre, but he also was responsible for Cutler going to the bears and not the Browns.  I also said that since Cutler was now on the bears, they would be able to attract good free agents, since others would want to play with him.  Peppers, Taylor, and the Charger tight end are examples of this.  So is Mike Martz.  People didn’t factor this in when they talked about how much the bears gave up for Cutler, while I said they gave up almost nothing compared to what they got.  I also said that giving up the draft picks was extremely smart, and I would have given 5 first-rounders for Cutler.  I said the bears could take the money that would have been devoted to those picks and sign very-good free agents that are proven, vs. drafting someone, paying them a lot, and hoping they are good (even ignoring the bears’ terrible track record here).  Again, this is exactly what happened.  Would you rather have Cutler, Peppers, Taylor, Martz, etc., or two first-round  (and I think a third-round) picks?  It’s not even close!!!  Ted Thompson strikes again!  Again, nobody ever talked about these points, but they were obvious to me from day one.  As I said, I do agree with most things Thompson has done and he is doing a great job of building a good team, but he cost them the two championships with Favre.
You “accuse” me of inventing momentum to provide reasons, so I will “accuse” you of ignoring reasons and just looking at final scores (details below).  In addition, it doesn’t matter to you that one team beats another on the field, but can’t overcome terrible calls (such as the Vikings-Saints,  details below).
Did the Sox do some great things in 2005?  Of course.  That doesn’t change the fact that the umps made terrible call after terrible call to give the Sox game- and series-changing games and momentum.  Borderline calls?  That’s a laugh.  The catcher’s interference in the Angel game was blatant.  Running inside the baseline was blatant.  I could go on and on.  Yes, you can say the Josh Paul call and the Damon call were borderline, but an opposing manager with nothing on the line said Paul did the right thing because he caught the ball and the Sun-Times sports editor said  Damon didn’t swing.  The point is that all the calls WERE BAD, and they all went for the Sox, borderline or not, giving them games, confidence, and momentum, as well as frustrating the opponents.  Yes, the Sox got a bad call in the Astro series, but it was far too late in the playoffs to matter after the damage had been done.  Yes, the Astros made the World Series, but that doesn’t make them the best NL team.  In addition, the Astro players outplayed the Sox players, and only lost because of Garner’s idiotic  moves.  So, you can legitimately say the Sox beat the Astros, as the  manager is part of the team, but to say they are a better team isn’t correct.  I have all those games on tape, and if we watched them, I’d point out all the things I said IN ADVANCE (with witnesses) that Garner should do, but wouldn’t, and it would backfire.  I watched Game 1 at a friend’s house, who is a Sox fan, and he had a lot of Sox fans there.  They were “amazed” that I was saying these things in advance and they all played out the way I said they would.  It’s common sense, but Garner didn’t have it, and that’s why the Sox won.  If Phil Jackson holds out Michael Jordan in a Game 7 of the playoffs and the other team wins, they did win legitimately, but they only won because the Bulls’ coach had terrible strategy.  That’s the same situation here.
If you don’t think momentum plays a big part in sports, then we’ll always disagree.  You know that if the Josh Paul call wasn’t made, it’s 50/50 the Sox go to California for 3 games, down 2-0.  The Sox had scored one run to that point, and it was in the first inning on a one-hopper back to the pitcher, who threw it over the first-baseman’s head into the stands.  If they go to  California down 2-0, the series is over.  I didn’t call the Sox’ 11-1 playoff run a fluke, I called it ump-aided.  If they make the right call on the Damon non-swing, that series is completely changed and so is the 11-1 playoff record you talk about.
The Bartman play was the correct call in that situation and was borderline?  I now see what you call borderline, so that explains why you think the calls for the Sox were borderline.  The call was blatantly wrong, as every picture of the play and video clearly shows.  So, when a bad call is made  FOR your team, it’s the correct call in that situation?  The fact is this.  The rule is that if a fan reaches over the metal railing to touch a ball, it is fan interference.  Pictures clearly show Bartman well over the railing when he touched the ball.  Alou was there with his glove straight up, where the ball was coming down.  I sat in the Bartman seat and looked at the wall, and when the ball is inside the railing where Bartman touched it, it is definitely playable.  Does it matter if Florida fans are upset because a Cub fan touched the ball and they called it an out?  It would have been an out if not for that, and the correct call was fan interference.  If I go to a Packer-bear game and wear a bear jersey so it looks like I’m a bear fan, and I run on the field and tackle a bear player running for a TD, should the refs not call it a TD because I’m supposedly a bear fan and Packer fans would  be upset?
The bears were the best NFC team in 2006?  That’s also a laugh.  Seattle beats them in Chicago if Shaun Alexander doesn’t run into his own guy on 4th-and-1, if Seattle watched a gamefilm and realized that Grossman throws bombs on first down, etc.  And, the Saints did beat the bears in Chicago the next  week.  The refs blatantly stole that game, which was I believe a 5-point game in the 4th quarter, and I would be happy to watch the tape with you and show you all the bad calls.  In the meantime, Favre won his 9th Super Bowl this year, and you clearly saw how the refs stole it from him.  The  fact that you say Tarvaris Jackson could have had the success Favre had is  beyond ridiculous!  He quarterbacked the team the previous years and they went nowhere, despite having a healthy Antoine Winfield and E.J. Henderson (2 All-Pro defenders and keys to the defense), which Favre didn’t have.  Favre was the league MVP until Childress decided to run for 4 games, and had the highest QB rating (finishing second).  So, please explain how Jackson, who was terrible and never took the team anywhere, becomes the league MVP.
Favre has a history of making bad plays at the end of games dozens of times?  I talked about 4 situations and explained them in detail, so I’d  like to know about the others.  Favre has won far more games at the end than he’s lost.  As I said, I can point out playoff games where Brady had  three interceptions, Manning had 4, etc., but everyone comes down on Favre.  And you say the media is biased for him!  He said the other night that he wasn’t even sure he could have run, as both of his legs were  killing him.  Despite that, in the 4th quarter, he engineered 3 drives–the first to the Saints’ 10, where Berrian fumbled/the second for a TD/the third into possible winning-FG range, before a stupid penalty moved them back.  Who is talking about this great play under pressure while injured THE ENTIRE FOURTH QUARTER?  Favre also played better throughout the playoffs than every other playoff quarterback.  Favre outplayed Brees the entire game–where’s the criticism of Brees?  You ignore all the great things Favre did to win the game all game, but was sabotaged by others’ mistakes.  You also ignore the fact that the refs blatantly stole the game from the Vikings.  You ignore the fact that the Vikings threw on first downs their first two drives, scored TDs both times, and then ran on first and second down on the third drive and punted.  That’s Favre’s fault?  Why are people blaming Favre and not the fumblers (all game), the coaches (all game), etc.  They ignore Favre’s great game, look at one play, and say it’s his fault.  Another instance of you looking at the result in the newspaper instead of what happened during the game.
Here’s another example of you looking at the final result only, which I’ve told you before.  You say Buehrle’s game was more dominant than Wood’s, because Wood gave up a debatable infield hit and Buehrle didn’t give up any hits.  My response to you is that if the centerfielder doesn’t make that  great catch and Buehrle gives up a homerun, you probably say Wood’s game was more dominant since they both gave up a hit.  However, although you will probably change who you say is more dominant, neither of them pitched any differently!  How can you determine who was more dominant based on a defensive play?  The pitching is the pitching.  That’s why I look at what happened, and not just the result in the papers.
Here’s an example of someone else doing this!  After the U.S. beat the Canadians 5-3 in the early rounds of Olympic Hockey, one of the commentators said that the U.S. really came to play.  He obviously didn’t watch the  game, and just looked at the result, seeing the U.S. victory.  Came to  play?  The U.S. was outshot 45-23, the majority of the game was played in the U.S. zone, and it looked for most of the game that the Canadians were on the power play even though they weren’t.  It was great goaltending that allowed the U.S. to win (really 4-3, as the 5th goal was empty-net), not that the U.S. “came to play.”  The U.S. was thoroughly dominated.
Further response:
I agree injuries are part of the game and don’t change who wins, as a bad call would.  However, it does taint the victory.  If Favre would have been injured early in the Saints game and the Saints won, it would have been a legitimate win, but no one would have known who would have won had he been healthy (assuming other injuries on both sides balanced out).  Bad managing is  also part of the team and doesn’t change who wins.  However, that doesn’t mean you can’t debate things.  I can say the Vikings deserved to lose 2 of the 3 losses when they lost 3 of 4 at the end of the season (the bear game was stolen) because Childress had terrible gameplans, but that doesn’t change the fact they would have won those games had he not tried to run.  You say the 1996 Patriots were not deserving, but ignore the fact that there were about 3 AFC teams far superior to the 1986 Patriots.  Yes, Lovie is not a good strategic coach, but Seattle had a better team that year, and would have won if not for Holmgren’s bad gameplan and Shaun Alexander’s 4th-and-1.  The bears might have  been better with another coach, but Seattle was better.  Regarding the New Orleans game, again, all you’re looking at is the final score.  You refuse to consider what led up to it.  The fact of the matter is that it was a 5-point game in the 4th quarter, and there were a number of major, game-changing, key terrible calls prior to that that prevented the Saints from having a nice lead.  I have the tape of this game, too, and would be happy to show you.  It was blatant!  If the Saints had a nice lead in the  4th quarter, do you really think the Grossman-led bears would have been able to come back?  The Saints’ offense would also have been playing with more confidence, as they would have been scoring.
How many pictures of Bartman reaching over the piping would you like me to send you?  That is the rule.  You can also see Alou’s glove up and in the field of play, and although he could have reached closer to the wall, he didn’t, as the ball was coming down where his glove was.  It was clear fan interference by the rules, and it wasn’t called.  It doesn’t matter whether the fan was a Cub fan or any other fan, a rule is a rule.  And for you to say that had they made the call, the Marlins would have had a “beef-for-the-ages” when the call can clearly be shown to be correct, but the Cubs don’t have a “beef-for-the-ages” when the call can clearly be shown to be wrong is amazing.  You also point out logic that I’ve always disliked about sports, which is that calls should change at the end of the game when the game is on the line.  In other words, pass interference or holding might be  called in the first quarter, but the same thing won’t be called at the end of the game.  I have always been against this, as a penalty is a penalty, regardless of when it was committed.  People forget that games can be won and lost in the first quarter or first inning, too.  If the rules were to be changed due to the Jeffrey Maier play, then the league should announce that fan interference will no longer be called in the playoffs when it happens against the home team.  Let’s be honest upfront if we want to make bad calls a part of the game.

Favre/Vikings-Saints NFC Championship Game

by

A response to a friend:

You are saying what the entire media is saying, and in my opinion, that misses the big  picture.  Favre does everything he can the entire game to give his team a big lead, and all game his coaches, the refs, and his teammates can make mistakes to prevent the big lead Favre could have gotten.  When he “screws up” at the end, everyone forgets about the bad calls, the idiotic coaching, the  fumbles, penalties, etc., and it all comes down to him.  All of those other things put him in a position of having to make a play at the end of the game.  Most times he makes the play and they win, but when he doesn’t, everyone blames him for the loss and forgets that for the other 59.9 minutes, he’s been great and did enough to give his team an insurmountable lead.  Other QBs throw interceptions that cost their team (games can be lost at times other than the end), but no one talks about those.
Yes, it’s easy in retrospect to say that a quarterback who has to make a play to get some yardage  should be able to see that he can also run for 5-7 yards even though he’s playing on an ankle he thought could have been broken and thus isn’t thinking run and even though he was looking downfield for an open receiver.  People assume that a 56-yarder is a gimme and the Vikings had the game won.  Had they tried and missed a 56-yard field goal, they would have been severely  criticized for not trying to get closer.

The point is the Vikings were in the position of having to make that play because the refs, his coaches, and his teammates let the team down when he played so well that as Aikman said, the  game shouldn’t have been close.
You say the press is in love with Favre?  That’s a joke.  Not only does the press continue to focus on these plays and ignore the rest, but all summer, all I heard on sports-talk radio was that Favre was done and couldn’t accept it, and that he was making a terrible decision to come back.  They focused on the last 5 games when he was with the Jets, forgetting that he was playing with a torn bicep and partially torn rotator cuff, and an arm that felt “dead” to him.  Despite that, they still win 3 of the 4 games if the gameplan would have let him throw on first downs!  Yes, he was horrible in the final game against Miami, but that was the only game and by then his arm was dead.  He still gave them the best chance of winning going into the game based on the previous 4 games.  Despite the press that you say loves him bashing him all summer, I still said he was the best or second-best QB, and that was proven.  He led the league in QB rating until Childress started running at the end, and he still finished second.
Let’s talk about the end of the last 3 seasons.  The Packers lost in OT to the Giants on Favre’s interception.  What coach calls a 30-yard, across-the-field pass in brutal, subzero, windy conditions when the QB’s fingers are numb from being out there for 3 hours?   We’ve been through the  gameplans (the failure to continue the successful short passes, the failure to go out of press coverage), so no need to do that again.  The first two plays of the game were 11- and 12-yard passes, and then they start running and throwing deep in those conditions.  I talked about the Jets’ last game above.  This year, I guess I need to remind people that the Vikings determined they needed to get more yards before trying the FG since the 2 runs produced nothing (surprise!) and they had a stupid penalty.
Other  than Favre’s toughness, I haven’t heard you say one good thing about the way he played.  As I mentioned, in the 4th quarter with the game on the line in crunchtime, on one leg, these were the possessions:
1.  Favre led the Vikings to the Saints’ 10, where Berrian fumbled.
2.  Favre led the Vikings to a touchdown.
3.  Favre led the Vikings into FG range, where a stupid penalty made it very difficult.
On top of that, he played great the rest of the game and they would have had 14 more points had they not fumbled twice in the red zone.
You say Favre ended the Vikings’ hopes, but the game was still tied.  All the defense and kickoff team had to do was hold the Saints, but they didn’t.  That didn’t end the hopes?  All the refs had to do was make the correct calls in OT, but they didn’t.  That didn’t end the hopes?
You say you predicted the Vikings would fall short, but you needed bad call after bad call for that to happen.  Did you factor that into your prediction, knowing Favre was on the Vikings and they would therefore get robbed by the refs?  We all know that if they give the Vikings the stop on 4th-and-1 in OT, the Vikings win.
Favre was unbelievable, and the refs, his coaches, and his teammates are the reason they didn’t win, not him.
A later response:
It is correct to criticize Favre for not seeing that he could have run for 5-10 yards, as he was looking downfield and missed that.  That’s not that unusual for a quarterback, but it is a fair criticism in my  opinion.  The times people say he’s ended his team’s hopes (Philly playoff game, Giant playoff game, Jets final game, and Saints playoff game) all have tremendous extenuating circumstances.  You say the blame needs to fall on him INSTEAD of the refs, coaches, others’ mistakes, etc.  That’s my point!  Everyone forgets all the other mistakes and  just points to Favre’s.  Favre made a bad pass against the Eagles, but there were rumors that the receiver didn’t run the right route.  Calling  the long pass against the Giants in those conditions was crazy.  He had a torn bicep/dead arm in the Jets game.  He had to try to get some yardage in the Saints game to make it a shorter FG attempt, and did miss the fact he could have run.  However, all this ignores the fact that for 59.9 minutes in those games he did everything he could to win and others made mistakes.  No one talks about that.  No one also talks about when other QBs make mistakes earlier in games to cost their team, as people only look at the last play.  In the Eagle game, if not for the refs, the game is in G.B.  If not for Sherman’s idiotic gameplan of running when they played in G.B. during the season, the game is in G.B. even with the refs.  If Ahman Green (?) doesn’t trip over a lineman on 4th-and-1 at the Eagle 1 at the end of the half after Favre led another drive, the game is over.  If they blitz on 4th-and-26, the game is over.  If they go for it on 4th-and-1 at the end of regulation, up 3, the game is over.  If they  don’t get the horrible illegal block call on the punt return just before the interception, the Packers have great field position and are more  conservative with the passes.  On and on and on.  We talked about the Giant game and the idiotic coaching, which has a million times more to do with the loss than Favre’s interception.  Not dropping the press coverage when they were beaten over and over?  Not throwing short passes when they worked and conditions dictated it?  Favre played terribly in the last Jet game–no excuses.  He had no arm, but he was out there and his performance was  terrible.  However, even with the torn bicep, if the Jets’ gameplans weren’t always so conservative, they end up one of the top seeds in the AFC.  That had a lot more to do with the Jets not making the playoffs than Favre’s last game against Miami.  Regarding the Saints, Childress’ desire to show he, not Favre, was more knowledgeable cost the Vikings homefield advantage, which was much more of a factor than the interception.  The terrible calls, including giving the Saints a drive-continuing first down in OT, had much more to do with it.  The fumbles by his teammates after he continually led drives had much more to do with it.  BUT, all you and others focus on were these mistakes by him at the end of games.  At those points in the game, they really hurt, but all the other mistakes, terrible coaching, horrible officiating calls, etc. had MUCH MORE to do with his teams “losing” than those single plays.  Let me ask you a question:  A pitcher pitches a perfect game for 8-2/3 innings and is locked in a 0-0 tie, and then hangs a curveball to the 27th batter, who hits a home run.  Are you going to say the pitcher cost his team the game because he made a mistake at the  end?
The response after the Super Bowl:
Toward the end of the game, down 7, Manning had to make something happen, the other team knew it, and they intercepted him and returned it for a TD and a 14-point lead.  He then threw another interception from the Saints’ 4, but the guy was just out of bounds.  That’s what happens when you’re a QB in a position of having to make something happen at the end.  Many times you do make it happen, but sometimes you don’t.  Will critics come down on Manning like they do on Favre?  Unlike Favre, who has had terrible offensive coordinators his entire career, Manning has had a good one.  Yet, the Colts have only won one Super Bowl, against a terrible bear team, and played very poorly in that game.
Had the refs not blatantly stolen the Viking game, which the league admitted, Favre wins his 9th Super Bowl.  I believe he’ll come back next year so he’ll have a ring for each finger/thumb.
Further response:
The critics shouldn’t come down on Manning?  Have the Colts, despite having great teams, ever looked good in the playoffs?  Every year they look bad, and their one championship came against an absolutely horrible bear team, and even that was a 5-point game in the 4th quarter I believe.  I think Manning had 4 interceptions in a 41-0 loss to the Jets, and other interceptions in other playoff games that hurt.  I think the guy is fantastic, but can’t remember him looking good in the playoffs.  Favre on the other hand, if you even just look at this year, dominated the Cowboys to the point where he was on the cover of Sports Illustrated with the headline “Favre on Fire.”  The Cowboys were considered the hottest team and many thought they would win.  Favre then dominated the Saints in New Orleans, and the Vikings only lost due to bad call after bad call and continuous fumbles.  Favre played another fantastic game, and did more than his part to win it.  Everyone is going to focus on the one play instead of the other 119.9 minutes in the two games where he was unbelievable.  And, I love the fact that you and others treat this as if the Vikings were at the Saints 20, had a chip-shot field goal, and Favre cost them this.  The facts are that it was 3rd-and-15, there were 19 seconds left, it was a 56-yard FG, and the Viking coaches felt they needed to  get closer.  Blaming Favre for the loss when an incomplete pass results in an extremely long FG attempt and when he dominated the game the entire game is ludicrous, but Favre-bashers love to do this.  And the fact is that, even if they were at the 20 and he did this, it still wouldn’t have cost them the game, because if the penalty was called when he was hit illegally, the Vikings win in regulation.  Even with the game as it was, if they correctly call the Vikings’ stop on 4th-and-1 at their 42 in OT, the Vikings win.  I won’t even get into the call after that.  As is typical with your Cub-Sox argument and your Favre arguments, you completely ignore the fact that umpires steal games from my teams and help yours.  Do you want to go over again all the calls the Sox got?  Do you want me to show you the catches called traps in the Cubs-Atlanta playoff series?  Do you want a picture of Bartman reaching OVER the railing to interfere?  That’s right, let’s ignore all this because bad  calls supposedly even out.  AFTER ALL THE DEBATES WE’VE HAD OVER FAVRE’S  CHAMPIONSHIPS, ARE YOU GOING TO SERIOUSLY TELL ME HE DIDN’T WIN THE SUPER BOWL THIS YEAR?  THAT GAME WAS OBVIOUSLY STOLEN FROM THE VIKES, WHICH THE LEAGUE BASICALLY ADMITTED WHEN THEY SHOWED THE BLOWN CALL ON THE ILLEGAL HIT.
And, you also ignore that Favre ALL SEASON put the Vikes in a position to have homefield advantage, and it was Childress (a 4-game stretch at the end where he decided to be conservative) or the refs (stealing the Pittsburgh game) that cost the Vikings homefield and an easy win.  Favre  was great all year and had the Vikings undefeated if not for this, but again, you ignore all this and look at one play, distorting even that to make it seem like he took them out of easy FG range.  Favre had a fantastic year, and would have been the highest-ranking QB in the league on an undefeated team (not second, where he finished) if not for Childress (and the refs).  All the talk about Favre after the Saints game should have been how he led them on TD drive after TD drive the entire game against the NFC’s top-seeded team, on the road!

Bradshaw On Favre

by

This is exactly what I’ve always said.  It is from FoxSports.com.

Vikings need to learn a lesson from this win

Terry Bradshaw

Terry Bradshaw is a two-time Super Bowl MVP who led the Steelers to four Super Bowl championships during his pro career. He was inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame in 1989. Bradshaw joined FOX NFL SUNDAY in 1994.

            Updated Oct 19, 2009 4:08 AM ET

I hate to be picking on a team that is 6-0 right now, but what we have seen from the Vikings this season is that if Jared Allen and his friends up front don’t get to the quarterback early and often, their pass defense is going to get lit up. We have seen the lowly Lions, the Packers and now the Ravens, with second-year quarterback Joe Flacco, hurt them big time in the passing game. I mean they very easily could have lost to the Ravens. Steve Hauschka, or whatever his name is, missed a field goal he should have made. Conversely, Brett Favre is living the good life. Never in his career has he been 6-0. I mean his legend grows, the superlatives grow. I just hope he answers the questions after the game and gets the heck out of there. No need to dwell on this one. You can learn from your wins. And, here’s the deal, the Vikings better learn from this one. A young quarterback put up three touchdowns on them in the fourth quarter. Now, the Vikings have to say to themselves that they can never back off from their offensive game. They played conservatively there in the second half, trying to milk a win at home. I have to think that Brad Childress said, “Let’s not put the ball in the air and run the football. When you throw, bad things can happen like interceptions and returns for touchdowns.” But how did the Vikings get their lead on Baltimore? By throwing the football. They have to put games like this away. Put it away, put it away and go for it. They didn’t do that and it almost cost them. I mean, when teams do that, a lot of times they end up losing. I’ve been there as a quarterback. It’s easy to say, “Let’s kill the clock and get a win. We got it.” And invariably the other team lights it up and now you’re scrambling like Brett was in that fourth quarter. I am impressed right now with Favre; he’s just playing great. He’s got all his receivers involved and you can tell they are busting to get open. I know how great Adrian Peterson is as a runner, but it’s always easier to create your passing offense than your running offense because you have a lot more players helping you. Peterson, if you have eight defenders up, it’s hard for him to run. But it’s much easier to throw against that same defense.  What it looks like they are doing in Minnesota with their wide receivers is they are saying, “I have to catch this ball.” Visanthe Shiancoe’s first touchdown was a turnaround, twisting catch. I know how receivers think. They are telling themselves, “I got to catch this one to keep his confidence up in me. The alternative is that Brett is going to throw to someone else next time.” And this is all benefiting Brett. I mean, his receivers are making some great catches. For the most part, Brett is gunning it in there and making all the throws. His 58-yarder to Sidney Rice was right on the money and that put the Vikings in winning field-goal range. Still, this was a very impressive win because I loved Baltimore at the beginning of the season. The Ravens have lost three in a row now, but they are still a quality team. But a great defense doesn’t give up 30 points. I guess neither one of these defenses is great anymore. Too many flaws in both of them.

 

NFL Draft

by

I have always hated trading down and love trading up (with the exception of trading down one place or so when you know you’ll get the guy you want).  I’d much rather have a better player or an impact player than multiple good or average players.  I was thrilled the bears traded down, and loved the fact that the Packers traded up to get Clay Matthews.  In the free-agency era, you can always plug holes, but if you can draft an impact player, I think you should.
I was very upset about the Packers not drafting Michael Crabtree.  I was irate during the draft when they passed on Randy Moss to take Vonnie Holliday.  I’m not saying Crabtree is as good as Moss and I don’t know anything about him except that everyone said he is a great impact receiver.  I hope I’m wrong, but I was very upset about them not taking him.  With Crabtree, Jennings, and Driver, as well as other good receivers, the Packers could have scored 40 points a game.  That takes a lot of  pressure off your defense.  Again, I hope I’m wrong, but this could come back to haunt them as the Moss situation did.  They even let Moss go to another team in the division!  It took the 49ers about a half-second to select Crabtree.

Packer-Giant Playoff Game/Various

by

A response to a friend:
It is commonly accepted that a running game is necessary in bad weather, and I respectfully disagree unless the weather is what it was in the second Packer-bear game, which made passing almost impossible.  The Giant game was not this situation, and a high-percentage passing game can work in the cold.  You said the Giants concentrated on stopping Grant and the short passes.  Had they done this, it would have left longer passes wide open.  I don’t believe they tried to stop the short passes at all.  Favre completed the first two to wide-open receivers, and then they rarely tried them again with the exception of the sideways passes that were not the 7-10 yards downfield I am talking about.  If you believe the Giants were playing defense to take away slants (which I’m not sure is possible), then all a receiver has to do is slant 3 yards, Favre pumps, and then he slants the other way and would be wide open.  I firmly believe you can’t stop a short/medium passing game, and it was the fact that the Packers didn’t try it that hurt them.  It was not that the Giants stopped them.
We agree there was a “feel” during the game that the Giants could win.  As I told you, 5 minutes into the game I said that if the Packers stayed in press coverage and didn’t throw the short and medium passes, they were in trouble.  This is what gave the Giants confidence, prolonged drives, etc.  That’s why I keep referring to the Miami-bear game.  Gameplans make all the difference.  The Packers’ gameplans might have been fine to start the game, but should have been changed midway through the first quarter.  Had they been changed, the Packers would almost assuredly have won easily.  Favre looked bad not because of the weather, but because of the gameplan that was not going to be successful.  How good did he look in the opener against Philly when they were running all game?  Their offense went nowhere, and he didn’t look very good.  It’s not his fault that the gameplan was designed to make him look bad, and I said this early in the game.  The Giants defense shut down a horrible gameplan, and would have been dominated by a good one.  Al Harris, despite what  everyone says, was not dominated by Burress.  It is physically impossible for a human being, including Deion Sanders, to cover anyone when they are in press coverage and the other team runs the patterns Burress ran.   The fact that Harris was so close to him on most passes was incredible.   Again, I’ve said every Packer game for 3 years that eventually a team would figure out that they could easily attack press coverage.  The key is to play it until the other team figures this out, and then back off of it.  If you don’t, you’re in trouble and the other team has a huge advantage.
The reason the Giants dominated was strictly because of the Packer gameplans, not because of the Giants’ play.  Yes, the Giants had good  gameplans against the Packer defense, but all they had to do was back off the corners 2 yards, and the Giants are shut down.  Burress has a bad ankle and wasn’t going to beat anyone deep.  Defensively, you can give the Giants credit for stopping the run, but if the Packers throw smartly, they score a lot.
You can say that Favre made a living this year with his receivers getting yards after the catch, but that’s what the short and medium passing game with slants will do.  That’s what it’s designed to do.  You have a hard time believing McCarthy left this out of the gameplan?  Did you have a hard time believing he could switch to the running game in the second half of the first Packer-bear game, or stay in the press coverage when it was being beaten time and again?  Even the national press, which came down hard on him after the first bear game and called him a coward, talked about the stupidity of staying in the press coverage.  This is something I caught early in the game, but he didn’t, so why does it surprise you that after the first two short passes work, he starts running and throwing long?
The Giants might be better than appeared at first glance, but they weren’t better than a very hot Packer team that had scored TDs on 9 of 11 possessions and have better talent.  With a bad gameplan, Miami loses to the bears by 30; with a good gameplan, despite probably being double-digit underdogs, they easily beat the bears 31-13.  Same here.  The Packers’ gameplan made  themselves look bad and the Giants good.  I’ve watched enough games to understand this 5 minutes into the game.  I won’t argue with you that the way the game went, the Giants dominated.  I’m just explaining why, and how the Packers could have dominated with a common-sense gameplan.  Had the Packers changed to the gameplans I told you they should have had, the Giants would not have been able to be successful.
Favre’s body language didn’t look bad because of the weather, that’s how he looks in games when they have bad gameplans.  After the 2002 season when he was so frustrated with the offensive coordinator, people were also saying he looked sluggish, etc.  The weather in the Giant game had nothing to do with how he looked–it was the gameplan that makes him and the offense look  bad.
We also disagree on the 49ers, Cowboys, and Broncos.  So, because they won on the field, cheating to keep their good players which allowed them to win is okay?  That makes no sense.  If they didn’t skirt the salary cap, they would have lost some of those players and might not have won.  I’m sick of the after-the-fact slap on the wrists these teams get.  And, yes, if the Patriots videotaped a lot as they are now accused of, again, this could have been an advantage.  Why do people say steroid-taking homerun hitters should lose their records, but not teams that cheat to keep good players?   Sosa and McGwire hit their homeruns on the field the same way the 49ers, Cowboys, and Broncos won on the field.  Sports today is ridiculous.  Players cheat, coaches cheat, and managements cheat.  And all anybody ever gets is a slap on the wrist.
You don’t think the Packers with Moss would be a better offense than the Patriots with Moss?  The Patriots offense was the reason they lost last year.  Brady’s previous high for TD passes was 28, and Favre had 8 seasons of 30 or more.  This would have been the 9th, but the two TD passes stolen  from him in the Redskin game kept him at 28.  Moss opened up the entire Patriot offense.  Once teams started triple-teaming him, then the Patriots could run.  All summer, I predicted the 50-60 TD passes with Moss, the QB winning the MVP, and the single-season scoring record.  I guarantee  you with Moss, Driver, and Jennings, the Packers would have had a better offense than the Patriots and would have equaled or exceeded everything the Patriots did.
All summer I read and heard that the Moss deal was likely to happen, that Moss said he wanted to go to Green Bay, and I believe I read he had even told that to Favre.  Moss says he hung up the phone, but everything I’ve read is that the Packers had the deal on the table, and walked away.  If Packer management did do things to frustrate him, it just shows how stupid they were in this case.  You can get the best or second-best receiver ever for a 4th-round pick and $3 million, and he would make their offense unstoppable, and you don’t do it?  After the second game of the season, Packer GM Ted Thompson came out publicly and said he made a mistake.  This seems to confirm everything I read all summer that said the Packers had the deal for the taking.  Thompson didn’t say Moss didn’t want to play for Green Bay, he said he made the mistake by not agreeing to the  deal.  When the Packers did turn the deal down, Favre was very upset and went public with it.  I read he even stopped talking to Thompson.  Again, this wouldn’t make sense if Moss had said he wouldn’t play for them.  However, even if Moss is right in what he says, it’s still Packer  management blowing this deal that would have resulted in an undefeated season, 50+ TD passes and another MVP for Favre, an NFL single-season record for points scored, and Favre’s 9th Super Bowl win.  I predicted all this during the summer if they signed Moss, and the Patriots did all these things.  The Packers with Moss are a better offense than the Patriots with Moss.

Tainted Championships

by

A response to a friend:

We already discussed how the Cowboys and 49ers bent the rules to keep their “dynasties” going, including the penalties given by the NFL.  Here is what I read in the Chicago Sun-Times a few days ago.  Please ignore the incorrect reference to the Broncos winning consecutive championships as we know Green Bay beat them, as the article should have said consecutive Super Bowl appearances.
“The Broncos’ consecutive championships in 1997-98 were marred when it was learned the team had deferred $29 million in payments to quarterback John Elway and running back Terrell Davis, essentially cheating the system.  The team was stripped of a third-round draft pick in 2002 and fined nearly $1 million.”
What ridiculously small penalties these teams get for this.

Overrated

by

Response to a comment on a recent post:
Here is a further response to the Favre-is-overrated issue.  You say he’s overrated because he only won one championship.  We all know he won 8, but I’ll respond to your “one win” scenario.
Barry Sanders was one of the greatest running backs ever, if not the greatest.  He played on teams that didn’t win anything.  As a leader of the team, even by example, does this mean he was overrated?  It’s not his fault he was on teams that didn’t win, and he did everything he could to help his teams win.  I don’t think that makes him overrated at all.   It’s not his fault he wasn’t on better teams.
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that Barry Bonds’ statistics are legit.  He was a leader of the team.  Does that make him overrated since the Giants never won anything?  Of course not.  He did  everything he could to help his team win.  If he’s on the Yankees, he wins championships.  Does this make him a better player?
One thing that has always bothered me is when MVP awards are given to players on winning teams  when that is the reason stated.  For example, Derrek Lee did not win it a few years ago because the Cubs didn’t win it.  Why don’t they have two awards–MVP on a winning team and MVP?  Michael Jordan was probably the most valuable player in the league before the Bulls won championships.   These sports are not individual sports.  What more did they want Derrek Lee to do?  He had better stats than the winner.  He had a lot of clutch  hits.  If Lee was on the team that won and the winner was on the Cubs and they both had the same years, Lee would have won.  That’s ridiculous.  I’m only using Lee as an example, as this happens in other circumstances.

Singletary/Running Backs/Pippen

by

A response to comments on a recent post:
I’m not  punishing Singletary for not doing what he’s not required to do.  Yes, the way teams attacked the bears, he looked great.  No argument there.  I’m just saying that if teams threw short over the middle, he would have looked bad.  You can’t punish him since teams didn’t do this, but at the same time, people should recognize that he would have been a weak link if teams did do this.  Teams did not need the personnel to do this.  It looks that way because only Miami did it in 1985, and Miami had a very good team.  Washington was the only team to do it the next year, and they were a playoff team.  Was Jay Schroeder the right personnel?  I watched all those games in 1985, and whenever a team did this, and granted they didn’t do it a lot, it worked.  Regardless of what team did it.  Don’t forget the Patriots did it on the first two plays of the Super Bowl, and Stanley Morgan was wide open behind Singletary and dropped the touchdown pass.  Any receiver could get open behind Singletary.
Let me give you an analogy.  Before the hashmarks were moved in, very few runners ran for 1000 yards.  I believe it was something like 14 in history, and the first year the hashmarks were moved in (1972), 11 guys did it.  Something like that.  Guys like O.J. Simpson and Dave Hampton, who had done nothing, became stars overnight.  I don’t think O.J. did much his first three years in the league, they moved in the hashmarks, and he becomes an immediate star.  Now, does anyone recognize that if the hashmarks weren’t moved in, these guys wouldn’t have been nearly as good?  You’re right, you can’t punish them for playing under the new rules, but you still need to look deeper.  Have you ever heard anyone talk about the fact that O.J. was not a star until the hashmarks were moved in?  Again, I’m looking deeper than just how the games went.
We agree that based on how the games went, Singletary should be in the HOF.  That doesn’t mean he was one of the greatest players, it just means he played great based on the way teams attacked them and based on the guys in front of him.
Scottie Pippen is on the list of the 50 greatest basketball players.  Here’s my take on him.  Scottie was one of the best defensive players ever.  I don’t undervalue this at all.  Offensively, he wasn’t a  leader, and when the 4th quarter came around and teams tightened their defense,  he didn’t score a lot.  Watch game tapes when he would get the ball at the end of a quarter on a last possession, and he would dribble it off his foot out of bounds, throw up a bad shot, etc. every time.  Yes, based on his career, playing with Jordan and the others, and just looking at the games, you could say he belongs in the top 50.  I look deeper and realize what truly happened, and don’t rank him quite that high.  I remember watching a Bulls game with a friend one of the years Jordan was playing baseball.  The Bulls were going to take the ball out with under 24 seconds to play, and I told her, “Watch Pippen.  He’ll get the ball, dribble down the right sideline, and dribble the ball off his foot.”  That’s exactly what happened, and she just looked at me.  My first impression when I saw Pippen wasn’t on the floor for the end of that Knick  game (1.8 seconds) was, “Great.  Now Kukoc will take the last shot instead of Pippen, who would definitely miss.”  I then thought Pippen should at least be out there as a decoy.  This is before we learned what happened.  My point is, people don’t realize the deeper aspects of his  game, which in my opinion, ranks him lower than he is ranked.  Again, I do think he was great defensively.  Should he be punished for playing with Jordan?  Of course not.  But at the same time, we need to consider that when talking about his overall play.
So, to recap, if you want to say Singletary was a great leader and very good against the run, we agree.  If you want to say that he was all-around one of the best middle linebackers ever, we will disagree.  He could easily be beaten on passes over the middle, and as soon as he didn’t have Hampton in front of him, his play dropped tremendously.  This, along with the fact that we already discussed, that many years after he retired (a few years ago), he looked at the films, called up Hampton, and told him “I used to think it was me.  After watching these films, I now realize it was you.”  Hampton, as I said, responded with, “You’re only realizing that now?”  This is exactly what I said during Singletary’s entire career, and even he admitted it many years later, with Hampton also saying it.